Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Ship Repairs

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will have consultations with British ship-owners to ensure that wherever possible British ships are repaired in British shipyards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The Government urge British shipowners to have their ships repaired in this country whenever possible. We recognise, however, that they themselves compete in an international market and that therefore they should be free to repair at home or abroad according to their commercial judgment. We notice with satisfaction that British shipowners at present buy nearly three-quarters of the capacity of the British ship-repairing industry.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest example is the Southern Ferries ship "Panther", which sails from Southampton and is now to have its annual refit in a French shipyard? Will he hold an inquiry into the extent to which foreign Governments are directly subsidising tender prices?

Mr. Davis: I will look into the point made by my hon. Friend. Regarding the specific case he has mentioned, I understand that the French quotation was the best.

Mr. Mitchell: Very much less.

Mr. Davis: Our shipowners are obliged to compete in an international market and must exercise their discretion within that compass as to where they will

have their repairs done. We must always be on guard about any pressures that we might invoke, because this might result in retaliation from foreign interests.

Mr. Heseltine: How much higher a proportion of the output of our yards will be directed to British shipping after nationalisation has taken place?

Mr. Davis: That is a matter that we hope will flow as a direct result of nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the ship-repairing industry is excessively fragmented at present. Desperately important changes are necessary in the structural and modernisation programme which has to be introduced, and public funds are an important part of that. Unless public funds are injected, we cannot get the necessary improvement.

Court Line (Holiday Deposits)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he still expects to fulfil the promise he made to members of the public, who had advanced deposits for travel with Court Line, for a full refund; and when such refunds will be received.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): The legislation foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech will make provision for repayment to help these holidaymakers and others travelling abroad by air who lost money this year as a result of the failure of their air travel organiser. It is too early to say when the refunds will be made.

Mr. Rost: If the ombudsman confirms that the Secretary of State for Industry was guilty of misleading the public concerning the Court Line travel arrangements, who will pay the money?

Mr. Shore: That is a somewhat hypothetical question, but it is open to the ombudsman to make recommendations about such matters in his report.

Mr. Skinner: On the question of repaying the money, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Court Line directors must be held responsible, especially as they were so lavish in the way they threw their money around that they were prepared to allow the jet "Halcyon Days" to be used by the Leader of the Opposition in the February election seemingly without any payment until about six


months later? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General what he is doing about my letter regarding the misuse of funds during the election period and non-payment of those moneys after the 35 days' completion date?

Mr. Shore: I think that the House is aware of the statements that were made by the directors of Court Line in the period preceding the collapse. I think that my hon. Friend, like others, would be best advised to await the report of the inspectors who will be going into the matter in, I hope, a thorough and full way.

Mr. Neubert: If the reports are true that it is proposed that future clients of travel companies should pay in the price of their holidays for the liabilities of another travel company which has failed in circumstances in which the Government's rôle is so dubious as to be the subject of an official investigation, is it not unacceptable that such a principle should be established? What are the grounds for it and what possible precedent could there be?

Mr. Shore: That is a matter that deserves serious debate and examination. I hope that the opportunity will be provided before long when we present the Bill. There is here a question of fairness and of whether we should draw a line arbitrarily and abruptly between an arrangement which I hope will give genuine security to future holidaymakers and those holidaymakers who had expectations of reasonable security under a statutory bonding system which proved to be inadequate.

British Caledonian Airways

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British Caledonian about the company's future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on his policy on the future of British Caledonian Airways.

Mr. Shore: I saw the Chairman of British Caledonian Airways on 4th October and again on 14th October. He outlined his company's plans for the future,

which have since been put into effect. The position of British Caledonian will be considered in the course of the review of policy which I have set in hand.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is every need to maintain the viability of this airline? What discussions has he had with this airline and with British Airways about the rationalisation of routes? Are the Government prepared to put up financial assistance to help in any such rationalisation?

Mr. Shore: I should not wish to prejudge the results of the inquiry to which I have referred. On the question of rationalisation of routes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were continuing talks between British Airways and British Caledonian on this matter but agreement was not reached.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that this is the third time in the history of British civil aviation that a privately-owned second force has been artificially created for doctrinaire reasons to compete with the publicly-owned flag carrier, and that each time it has done damage to the flag carrier without doing any good for the airline concerned and it has got into trouble and had to be bailed out? Is my right hon. Friend aware that no country, not even the United States of America, can now afford two flag carriers, and is it not time that the Labour Government carried out Labour Party policy in this field if in no other?

Mr. Shore: I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a particular knowledge of this industry, will accept that we shall seek to carry out all the policies on which we gave pledges in our manifesto.
The answer to the particular question here, and it is a fundamental one that my hon. Friend has posed—namely, whether there genuinely is room for two airlines across the board in the way that the Edwards Committee originally recommended—is that this is a serious matter to which we have to find the answer, and I hope that we shall find it within the context of the review.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the one thing British Caledonian and other independent


airlines require is commercial security for their operations? Will he, therefore, undertake that the present airline routes operated by British Caledonian will remain undisturbed?

Mr. Shore: I am not prepared to give any assurances in advance of the result of the review to which I have referred.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread demand, particularly among British Caledonian employees, that the implication of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) should be carried out, namely, that this company should be nationalised as soon as possible in accordance with the Labour Party manifesto?

Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend has said. There are many factors that we shall take into consideration in the course of the review.

Mr. Heseltine: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long the review will take? Secondly, does he accept that while the review is taking place there is no purpose in British Caledonian's developing or investing in any of the routes that are the subject of the review?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that British Caledonian is not so much developing routes as it is contracting them. As for the review itself, there is the usual problem of combining thoroughness with speech, but I hope we shall complete it in the spring.

Exports (Shipping Facilities)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that adequate shipping space is available for British exports to the Southern Hemisphere; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I understand that, apart from some delays in containerised cargo for New Zealand, there should be adequate space from now on. If the hon. Member is aware of any other continuing difficulties, my Department will be happy to look into them and bring them to the attention of the appropriate shipping interests.

Mr. Beith: Has not the hon. Gentleman been told that I wrote to his hon. Friend in May about the difficulties experienced by Hardy's of Alnwick, fishing tackle manufacturers, wishing to export increasingly to Australia and New Zealand? Does he not realise that these difficulties are continuing though his hon. Friend promised that they would be investigated?

Mr. Deakins: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter. The point is that the situation has much improved since early this year. The main difficulty is that congestion at New Zealand ports is preventing containers from being returned to the United Kingdom. I am not aware of any further difficulties in any other parts of the southern hemisphere.

Mr. Goodhew: Even if there is capacity for shipping these exports, what will the Government do to ensure that there is free passage for this shipping? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the activities of the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean? In view of the support of Labour Members for the Government's attitude to the Simonstown Agreement, may I ask the Minister whether he is sure that this space can be used in future?

Mr. Deakins: I am not aware of any interference with the free passage of British ships on the high seas. There is a later Question about the Simonstown Agreement.

Aircraft Noise (Sound Insulation)

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will confirm that the current review of the sound insulation grants scheme is taking account of the effects of aircraft noise in schools and other public buildings as well as on private housing.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The review of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes is continuing. These schemes are financed by the BAA and apply only to dwellings. The extension of the schemes to other buildings is also being examined but there are formidable and far-reaching problems relating to such an extension.

Mr. Hayhoe: Can the Minister say when he expects the review, particularly


as it affects domestic accommodation, to be completed? Is he aware that there is widespread feeling among all those who live near these airports that the present scheme is out of date? In particular, they feel that the requirement that in order to benefit from it people should have lived in the same house for a considerable period ought to be discontinued. Equally, from the point of view of children attending schools which are severely affected by aircraft noise, we would like this extension of the scheme to be brought forward quickly.

Mr. Davis: I have written to the hon. Gentleman about the review as it relates to housing. I hope to be in a position to make a statement before the end of the year. I hope this will become a reality, but the lion. Gentleman will recognise the problems that exist. I am aware of the anxiety and distress that are caused to many people in the vicinity of Heathrow and, indeed, other airports. This necessitates our dealing with the matter thoroughly but as expeditiously as possible. I cannot say when I shall be able to make a statement on the wider review. Other Departments have to be consulted, and the large expense involved is also a matter of some concern.

Mr. Jessel: Can the Minister say whether the sound insulation grant can be extended to the London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames? Is he aware how much my constituency suffers from aircraft noise? Does he not agree that borough boundaries are an illogical basis for sound insulation scheme grants?

Mr. Davis: The question does not arise as a result of borough boundaries, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I cannot prejudge the result of the review and say whether the hon. Gentleman's borough will be beneficially affected.

European Economic Community

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the visible trade deficit of the United Kingdom with the previous EEC Six in 1974 to date at annual rate, compared with the corresponding deficit in 1970.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current balance of trade between Great Britain

and the original six members of the EEC for the most recently available six months; and how this compares with the corresponding period before British membership of the Common Market.

Mr. Shore: The "crude" trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports valued fob and imports valued cif—in the first 10 months of this year was £2,075 million expressed at an anual rate compared with £69 million in 1970. In the six months ended October the deficit was £1,076 million compared with £246 million for the corresponding period in 1972.

Mr. Jay: Does not this enormous swing into deficit throw a remarkable light on the promise that this great home market would solve all our economic problems? Is not our trade deficit with the EEC this year equal to, if not greater than, the whole of our non-oil current balance of payments deficit?

Mr. Shore: It accounts for the greater part of the non-oil deficit in trade with the rest of the world. On the first point raised by my right hon. Friend, the answer is that those who so misguidedly believed that there would be benefits to Britain's trade from entry into the EEC cannot possibly have had their hopes more massively ruined than they have been by the figures that have emerged since 1st January 1973.

Mr. Powell: Are not these figures evidence that the general pattern of British trade as a whole is likely to be less favourable to the interests of this country inside the EEC as it is at present than outside it?

Mr. Shore: This is a very serious question, which has certainly been giving me a great deal of anxious thought. I cannot yet say. Part of the difficulty in dealing with the situation is that one has had only about 22 months or, if one allows for the pre-accession year, 34 months, to be certain about what the facts themselves purport to show.

Mr. Roper: Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the reason for the deterioration of the trade balance with the Community has been the diversion of cereal purchases from North America to the European Community and that this


has represented a net benefit to our balance of payments?

Mr. Shore: It is a little difficult to establish that this is so. It might be so exceptionally in the case of cereals, for which, as we know, world prices have been above Community prices. On the other hand, it also reflects a diversion of trade in terms of dairy products. I know that my hon. Friends would not wish me to pretend that dairy products are not more expensive inside the Community than they are outside it.

Mr. Adley: Does the Minister think that people on the Continent work a little harder, perhaps, than we do? Has that anything to do with the figures?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that at all. But if that was what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends thought two or three years ago, perhaps they should have warned the British people of it.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current rate of trade deficit with the Common Market.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current rate of trade deficit with the Common Market; and what percentage this represents of our total non-oil deficit.

Mr. Shore: The trade deficit with the other members of the EEC, on a balance of payments basis and seasonally adjusted, was £1,368 million in the first nine months of 1974. Excluding trade in oil, the deficit with the EEC was 63 per cent. of our total non-oil deficit.

Mr. Marten: I acknowledge that exports to the Common Market have risen marginally since we entered, much in line with the way they rose before we entered, but how long can Britain continue with a trading deficit like this? Is there any unilateral action which the Government could consider in order to put right this terrible state of affairs, or would it offend the mandarins of Brussels if we were to do so?

Mr. Shore: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no concern about giving offence to the mandarins of Brussels, as he puts it, will dictate my attitude towards this question. I remind him—it is a serious point—that in May, for the widest pos-

sible reasons, we subscribed as a Government, under the auspices of the OECD, to a declaration not to interfere in the direct regulation of imports for at least the next 12 months—that is, from May onwards. That is an extremely important pledge, because I should greatly fear in the present climate of world trade that one action by us, however much the figures might on the face of them justify it, would lead to a chain reaction which none of us would wish to see.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In the light of these staggering deficit figures, and since M. Chirac stated publicly last Friday that it would be impossible to renegotiate such a young treaty and that if Britain did not like it she must make other arrangements, does my right hon. Friend think that there is any point in trying to renegotiate the treaty?

Mr. Shore: I think that renegotiation as such has only just begun. It has only just begun because of the uncertainties in the Community about whether there was a continuing Government to deal with, and that matter could not be made certain until the voters made their decision clear in October. Now, however, we are entering a serious period of renegotiation, and I would only say to my hon. Friend on this matter that I expect we shall have the answer quite clearly and unmistakably in a few months.

Mr. Moate: Are not the figures so bad for Britain and so good for the Six that, if in the context of renegotiation it were to be proposed that Britain should leave the Community, it would plainly be advantageous to the Six to continue some form of trading arrangement with this country? Would the presentation of such an alternative be part of the renegotiation package so far as the British people are concerned?

Mr. Shore: It is a little early at present to think about the alternatives, although I have never disguised from the House or anyone else interested my own view that the most acceptable alternative would be a form of free trade area agreement with the countries of the EEC. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman scores a perfectly fair point. The British market has always been of considerable value to the countries of the Six, just as we also have a great interest in their market, and I


should not imagine that they would be prepared to take action which would lead to their loss of access to the British market.

Mr. Luard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is misleading to compare the figure of deficit in this year with the figures for 1970, as he did a few moments ago, when to do that is to compare what is happening at a time when we are in grave deficit—£4,000 million in total—with what happened in 1970 when we had a considerable balance of payments surplus? Is it not, therefore, a misleading comparison? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge also that it is not true to assert, as he did just now, that many people have stressed that there would be short-term trading benefits from our entry into the Common Market when what most of us have always argued is that there would be a difficult period of readjustment, after which we should find ourselves in the long term in a more favourable trading position?

Mr. Shore: I understand what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that he was in the House when we had our long and detailed debates about entry into the EEC. I remind him that a large part of the case which was argued by the present Opposition in favour of the proposition for entry was the immense gains which would accrue to Britain straight away in terms of membership of the Community, with a home market of 250 million people, as they used to say. Indeed, I remember that during the White Paper campaign in the country it was actually put to the British people that the decision to go in was worth about £5 a week on the average wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seven."] As always, I understate my case I did not deliberately choose the year 1970 for comparison with 1974. That was embodied in the Question I was asked. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the major point in my reply, which is that of our non-oil trade our deficit this year with the EEC accounts for 63 per cent. of the total, while our trade with the EEC is no more than about 30 per cent. of the total.

London and Counties Securities Group Ltd.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has received

the report of the special investigation by his Department into the collapse of the London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. of November 1973.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The inspectors are making good progress with their inquiries and we hope to receive their report early next year.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is being shown daily that the scale of this collapse has had a domino effect throughout the whole of the banking system? Does he realise that the UDS set aside £5 million as a rescue loan and has now had to write it off, and that Keyser Ullman and First National Finance Corporation are now lingering at the bottom partly as a result of this rescue operation? Does he agree that those cardboard directors, such as the Leader of the Liberal Party, who got involved in these squalid operations should be made to foot the bill?

Mr. Davis: Of course I am concerned about the collapse of this or any other company, with its effects on the rest of the finance world. It would be quite wrong of me, however, in any sense to prejudge the result of the very complex investigation that is being undertaken. It would not be right for me to cast aspersions on any of the directors at this stage. We shall review the evidence when it is available.

Japan

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will open negotiations with the Japanese Government to facilitate the export of British vehicles to that country.

Mr. Deakins: The Japanese Government are well aware of our desire to expand sales of all British products, including vehicles, to Japan. But I am ready to consider making representations whenever specific evidence of barriers to our exports is brought to my attention.

Mr. Miller: I accept the Minister's assurance and I shall be happy to supply him with that information in a particular case. Does he accept the general point that if we are to make a success of the diversion of our resources into exports, about which the Chancellor was talking last week, his Department must pay attention to non-tariff barriers in general?

Mr. Deakins: Yes, indeed. Allegations have been made recently about hidden barriers on car exports, in particular to Japan, but the evidence available so far does not bear this out. There are, for example, the new motor regulations dealing with anti-pollution controls which the Japanese have introduced. These are available in English and, what is more, they will apply to imported cars one year later than to domestic Japanese-produced cars, so there is no hidden barrier to imports there.

Mr. Luard: Despite what my hon. Friend has just said, is it not a fact that there are frequent changes in the regulations applied by the Japanese Government to imports of motor vehicles and that this is making it extremely difficult for foreign exporters of motor vehicles to obtain adequate access to the Japanese market? Is it not a fact that the Japanese import only a tiny proportion of all the motor cars on Japanese roads whereas they are exporting very heavily all over the world? If they wish to continue to enjoy the benefits of markets in Europe and elsewhere, should they not make their own markets more easily accessible to British exporters?

Mr. Deakins: That might have been true up to about two years ago, but I can no longer accept the premise of that question. Japanese imports of motor vehicles totalled 18,000 in 1971 but 40,000 last year. They are currently running at an annual rate of 50,000. Furthermore, United States and German motor car manufacturers now control nearly 90 per cent. of the imported car market in Japan and have seen their sales increase threefold in the past few years.

Court Line Inquiry

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the affairs of the Court Line.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to publish the report of his inspectors into the collapse of Court Line Ltd.

Mr. Shore: The inspectors are pursuing their inquiries energetically, but the investigation involves some 70 subsidiary

companies and it is not possible to say when the report will be received or published.

Mr. Rooker: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should usefully use the time between now and publication of the report to ascertain whether the Leader of the Opposition has paid his bills for the October General Election, in case he gives the kiss of death to another troubled company in a year's time?

Mr. Shore: I leave that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Sedgemore: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government, in advance of the inspectors' report, have taken on board the lessons of this private enterprise collapse in relation to the need to strengthen employees' protection, the need to increase worker participation and the need to strengthen the rôle of the Civil Aviation Authority?

Mr. Shore: There are many lessons, some of which I hope we have already learned and some of which I hope we can apply towards giving greater security to holidaymakers in the future. But there is a great deal that we shall learn, and can only properly learn, when we get the full report into this complex matter.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one lesson that we should learn is that Ministers should be very careful before making statements in the House about the viability of companies? Will he confirm that the inspectors will be deciding whether the evidence upon which the Secretary of State for Industry made his statement was adequate and available within his Department?

Mr. Shore: When the hon. Gentleman offers the advice that Ministers should be careful about making statements in the House, I must say that there is probably no one sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, even when it is full, who is less qualified than the hon. Gentleman to make such a comment. As for the other matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, it is better indeed, now that we have thoroughgoing inquiries, to leave these matters until we have the results from people who are not seeking to make points but are seeking to establish the truth.

Export Promotion

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the annual expenditure of his Department directly related to the promotion of exports; and how many staff in his Department are directly involved in this aspect of the Department's work.

Mr. Deakins: The Department of Trade expects to spend £11·1 million directly in support of export promotion during 1974–75. Some 1,200 staff are involved in providing a wide range of services and promotional support for exporters.

Mr. Hooley: While welcoming that answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that £11 million in relation to a total export value of £12,000 million is not a very large sum? Is he also aware that, although a good deal of effort is being made by his Department in the traditional Western European and North American markets, I am not altogether satisfied that sufficient effort is being made in East European markets, the new oil States and certain other markets which could in future be even more lucrative?

Mr. Deakins: On the first point, the support given by the Department is wide-ranging. It is limited in the main by industry's willingness and ability to take advantage of particular schemes. To increase the level of financial support would not, therefore, necessarily increase exports. But my Department is always ready to consider new ideas for export promotional activities. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are definitely switching the emphasis to these newer markets, particularly in the oil-producing States, which could well become our major markets in a few years' time.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what instructions he gives to his Department about the current Australian import controls, which are causing a considerable cutback in orders in this country? At least one firm in my constituency is on a four-day week as a result of this.

Mr. Deakins: We are naturally very concerned about import controls imposed by any country anywhere, particularly at a time when world trade looks as if it will

slow down almost to recession pace. We have made representations and are still awaiting the outcome.

Export Credits

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that the export credit terms made available through the Export Credits Guarantee Department are comparable with those made available by our trading competitors.

Mr. Deakins: The facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department stand comparison with those of any other country. The Government's policy is that the Department should continue to match the credit terms available from our competitors.

Mr. Stanley: I welcome the reply by the Secretary of State last week that there are currently only two countries for which the ECGD facilities are being denied—namely, Rhodesia and Ghana—but is the hon. Gentleman aware that British exporters of heavy plant are experiencing considerable difficulty in competing successfully for fixed price contracts in respect of heavy plant because of the lack of availability through the ECGD of a system of insurance against inflation, such as is available through the French export credit agency? Will he take energetic steps to bring ECGD practice into line with that of France?

Mr. Deakins: A number of representations have been made to us on this and we have had a number of meetings with the manufacturers concerned, but the problem of inflation is common to exporters in all countries. If we were to support cost escalation it would constitute a subsidy which is not generally available, to our competitors. Where it is available, as in France, and perhaps in Italy with the newer scheme, we are doing our best to press for withdrawal or modification of such schemes. We do not want to get involved in wasteful subsidised international competition in protecting exporters against inflation.

Mr. Mikardo: On that point, is it not a fact that what the Department is doing is what we always do when we find our competitors breaking or bending the rules of the game? We go to them and say "You naughty fellows, you should not


do this. We want you to stop it." Does not my hon. Friend agree that meanwhile, until our competitors stop the practice, our exporters are greatly disadvantaged by the fact that their West European competitors get facilities which they do not have? Is it not time that the Government pressed the French and the Italians to withdraw their scheme and told them that until they do so we shall provide similar facilities for our exporters?

Mr. Deakins: The difficulty is that if we were to introduce such a scheme there would be a heavy cost to public funds because it would involve massive subsidy. That would be completely contrary to our international obligations in OECD. In addition, if the ECGD gave cover in these circumstances all our major international competitors would follow suit and, therefore, our last state would be no better than the first. Last but not least, it would encourage overseas buyers to seek fixed-price contracts, and at the moment there is some leeway for our firms in international competitive markets to bargain for cost inflation.

Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that the ECGD is already tending to bend the rules of its own game by seeking to impose credit limitations before they have been internationally agreed and certainly before those limits have been put before the House and agreed by the Government?

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Member had a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th November. I remind him of the answer that we are not proposing to act in the way suggested. International discussions are at present in progress. I would not want to reveal the stage which they have reached because they are still going on and are obviously confidential until we can make a public announcement about them.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of international obligations in terms of credit, could the French and Italians be reminded of their obligations? There is a good deal of evidence, as my hon. Friend knows, that the present difficulties and the redundancies in Honeywell involving 1,500 people are related to the assistance

given by their Governments to Honeywell factories in France and Italy.

Mr. Deakins: Where one of our international competitors, in a particular market for a particular project, wishes to give excessively subsidised terms, the policy is that we should try as far as possible to enable our industrialists here to match those terms. But there must be a limit to what we can do, and this is not a desirable policy overall.

Insurance Policies

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with the Life Offices Association regarding protection of policyholders.

Mr. Shore: I met the Chairman of the Life Offices Association on 9th and 28th October and officials of my Department have had a number of recent discussions with LOA representatives.

Mr. McCrindle: On what authority did the Secretary of State declare on 29th October that from that moment additional protection was being extended to policyholders? Did he obtain from the Life Offices Association an undertaking to surcharge policyholders of all companies so as to build up a fund to meet these contingencies, or did he have in mind that legislation which he is to introduce would be retrospective, in which case should he not have added, in making his statement, that what he said was subject to the will of the House?

Mr. Shore: I am fairly certain that I used those words in the statement I made. It would certainly not be my habit to be discourteous to the House or to make assumptions about the permission of the House before I had gained it. The guarantee I gave that it would become effective from 29th October is, of course, entirely subject to the approval of the House, but I am hopeful that the House will be kind enough to give me the consent I need.
On the other matter, the Life Offices Association, as I think I have remarked previously, is divided on the proposal and it has become necessary, therefore, for us to have a statutory scheme, whereas at one stage it was possible that it would be a voluntary one.

Mr. Roper: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Life Offices Association has decided in principle unanimously to oppose the scheme he put to it?

Mr. Shore: I do not think I can confirm that, but I will certain check on the matter. If that is so, I must say I would be surprised because in the talks I have had in the past few months with representatives of the life assurance industry there has been a willingness to accept the fact that these are extremely difficult and exceptional circumstances and that help was needed on an industry basis to face the problems.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that on the general matter of supplementary questions hon. Members should declare their interests?

Mr. McCrindle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I suspect that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is drawing attention to me, I unhesitatingly declare my interest in the life assurance industry and I apologise for any discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Speaker: It has never been a convention of the House that during Question Time interests should be declared.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I have no interest in this matter at all? Does he agree that during the debate we had on another matter of insurance two years ago—the V and G case—it was quite clear that the industry not only was incapable itself of policing the matter but did not wish to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that in this very dangerous matter of life assurance he is quite right to proceed on the basis that the industry, with all the best will in the world, cannot protect the interests of the policyholders as much as it would like, whatever it may wish?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman because that is a fair-minded statement of the situation in the insurance industry.

Holiday and Travel Trade

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action is proposed

to help those people booking overseas holidays and travel who suffer loss as a result of the failure of travel organisers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give consideration to an inquiry into bonding arrangements and other matters relating to the operation and management of the travel industry.

Mr. Shore: As already announced, existing protection afforded by travel organisers through their bonding arrangements for customers booking overseas holidays and travel is to be strengthened by the introduction of legislation. I doubt whether a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose at this stage. Our first priority must be to put our proposals into effect.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, in view of the loss of confidence in the travel industry and the need to avoid a repetition of the Court Line disaster, is it not urgent that he should look at this matter soon and bring legislation forward? In the meantime will he encourage the British travel industry to cater for holidays at home, as people are now thinking twice about going abroad next year?

Mr. Shore: The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question opens up a wide area. I am, of course, much concerned with it, and I agree that we should certainly improve our holiday facilities at home, not only for our own holidaymakers but to cater for the enormous and very welcome increased number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom from abroad.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I wholly agree that it is urgent for all kinds of reasons to create a new framework on which the confidence of the people of this country in the overseas holiday trade can be rebuilt and established.

Mr. Michael Morris: To take that matter further, as we are about to enter another season, will the Secretary of State consider making a further statement with regard to repayment, perhaps on no other basis than an interim basis for those who have suffered loss during the past season?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider that, but I hope to be in a position at least to introduce legislation before very long.

Mr. Moonman: I note that no review or inquiry is being considered by my right hon. Friend, but will he take into account that months before the Court Line disaster, some of us raised in the House the need for a State interest in this matter? Since market forces are quite incapable of dealing with the present problem, in the absence of legislation will my right hon. Friend give an indication that this is one industry where the State has a real interest?

Mr. Shore: Not only has the State an interest in the broad sense in the health of the overseas holiday industry but a major State corporation, British Airways, has a considerable actual stake in the whole business of overseas holidays and carrying people to foreign parts. However, I remind my hon. Friend that, while I am in no sense satisfied with the state of the industry—how could I be, after the events of last sumer?—we have in this case a regulatory agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, whose duty it is to examine and keep under review the general health and financial stability of overseas holiday firms.

Mr. Rost: As the Minister refused to answer my earlier question about whether the Government would honour their election bribe to repay the Court Line depositors, will he do so now?

Mr. Shore: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the election is over, and that was not put forward in any such spirit whatever, as will be made clear when we debate the matter properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Before very long, I hope.

Mr. Rost: Just before the next election?

Mr. Shore: I must have received at least 200 letters from Conservative Members during the period following the Court Line collapse all urging me to do precisely what I have done. So let them be quiet on that matter. I hope to bring forward legislation, and when that legislation is introduced I shall hope that it will be possible to get on with the job of repayments.

Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State will do well to remember that the reason why my hon. Friends urged him to do what he has now done was that his right hon. Friend had given assurances which encouraged people to put their money into holidays which they would not have done if the words had not been used.

Mr. Shore: Once again I have misjudged the hon. Gentleman. I had actually thought that his question might have been out of some concern for the holiday-makers themselves.

Oil Shipments (Cape Route)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of British oil supplies is shipped round the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr. Deakins: About three-quarters by weight of crude and partly-refined oil imports in the first nine months of this year.

Mr. Jessel: As the security of these oil supplies remains essential to the maintenance of full employment and living standards in Britain, will the Government put the British national interest first and above any emotional prejudice in these matters and make sure that these oil supplies are adequately protected by continuing to maintain a naval base at the Cape?

Mr. Deakins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 30th July in a Written Answer:
The need for adequate measures to protect British shipping is being taken fully into account in the general review of defence commitments and capabilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 109.]
That still holds good.

PVC Leathercloth Imports

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to prevent the dumping in the United Kingdom of PVC leathercloth manufactured in Canada, Hungary and other countries, to the detriment of the United Kingdom-based industry.

Mr. Deakins: My Department is ready to consider any application by the United Kingdom industry under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969


supported by reasonable prima facie evidence that imports are being dumped and are causing or threatening material injury to the industry.

Mr. Wigley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the answer given on 5th November which showed that imports in the first quarter of 1974 represented 37 per cent. of home sales compared with 25 per cent. for the corresponding period last year? Is he aware that the industry is very concerned about this increase and that it has led to redundancies in several parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Deakins: Imports, by volume, of coated PVC plastics were up by just over 3 per cent. in the first six months of this year. On the second point, the Leather Cloth and Coated Fabrics Manufacturers Association wrote to my Department in December 1973 alleging the dumping of PVC material. The Department offered to meet the association but has heard nothing from it since. The offer to meet it, of course, remains open.

South Africa

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking designed to increase trade with South Africa.

Mr. Shore: The standard range of the British Overseas Trade Board's services is available for South Africa as for other major markets. Exports in the first nine months of 1974 show a 37 per cent. increase in value over the comparable period in 1973. Imports increased by 29 per cent. over the same period.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister welcome this increase? If so, is it not hypocritical on the one side to be encouraging trade with South Africa and on the other side to cut off arms for the joint maritime defence of our sea communications?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member has completely confused the two issues. As he knows, the Government's view is that we must scrupulously and rigorously subscribe to and enforce our international obligations in terms of arms trade with South Africa.

Mr. Hooley: The policy of encouraging trade with South Africa is unacceptable to Labour Members for many

reasons. Is my right hon. Friend aware that by deliberately encouraging this trade we may imperil some of our far more valuable and important trading interests in the rest of Africa?

Mr. Shore: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the whole African market. Exports to black Africa are growing in importance. This is one of the many consequences which has flowed from the great increase in the price of oil, which has made Nigeria in particular a most attractive market. On my hon. Friend's other point, we have to consider the question of our trading interests. It is a difficult question but we have to consider it in the context of the trading policies of other countries in relation to South Africa.

Television Tubes

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will indicate what the future prospects are for trade in the domestic television tube industry, for 1974–75, 1975–76 and 1976–77, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: Official forecasts of trade in televsion tubes are not made. However, it is probable that, in conditions of less buoyant consumer demand, future growth in United Kingdom production, sales, exports and imports will at best be much slower than the expansion in recent years. Before long, production in the United Kingdom is likely to he confined to colour tubes.

Mr. Spriggs: I regret that records are not kept. Is my hon. Friend aware that two firms producing television sets in the United Kingdom will shortly be ordering black and white tubes from member States of the Common Market? In areas like Merseyside this will mean growing unemployment. What does my hon. Friend propose to do about this?

Mr. Deakins: A number of allegations have been made about the dumping of television tubes, and references have been made to the high level of imports which is affecting home production. The situation has improved a great deal, however, in the last few months. Comparing the third quarter of this year with the first quarter, imports of Japanese colour tubes are down by nearly one-half and imports from other countries, including the


Common Market, are down by about two-thirds. Therefore, although the situation is not as good as we would hope, it has improved a great deal.

Civil Aviation Policy

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what consultations he has had with British independent airlines in the course of the preparation of his new policy guidelines for civil aviation; and which airlines he has not yet consulted.

Mr. Shore: The review of policy which I have set in hand will require consultations with airlines and they will be given an opportunity to register their views.

Mr. Warren: What is the urgency of these consultations, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to Mr. John Cousins, national officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that urgent reviews of civil aviation are going ahead but many British airlines have not yet been consulted at either management or worker level? Is not this scandalous?

Mr. Shore: Not at all. There will be ample opportunity for airlines to make their views known, but clearly it is necessary to press ahead urgently with the review given the general contraction of air traffic this year and the difficulties facing the entire air transport industry.

Shipping (Location Beacons)

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider introducing the EPIRB—emergency position indicating radio beacon—as a legal requirement for all sea-going ships.

Mr. Clinton Davis: British ships, subject to certain exceptions related to size and area of operations, must carry portable radio equipment for use in emergency. I am at present carefully examining the need for additional devices, such as EPIRBs, particularly for fishing vesels.

Mrs. Chalker: In view of the increasing perils and difficulties facing our rescue services, will the Minister take further steps to ensure that ships are better equipped with distress and survival equipment?

Mr. Davis: This is a matter which is constantly under review, and we play a

leading part in the deliberations upon it at IMCO. Only today I have approved the Merchant Shipping (Radio) (Fishing Vessels) Rules to take effect from 1st January next year. This will significantly affect the safety position for fishing vessels.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he realise that there are two issues which the article in the Sunday Times confused—namely, long-distance search and rescue and near-water search and rescue? There is considerable feeling among people in the fishing industry that vessels should have these location beacons aboard so that even if the ships are lost adequate steps may be taken to trace the wrecks to discover why they foundered.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has a considerable knowledge of this matter and he is right. The article was confused in the respect he mentions. As I said, we are carefully examining how important it is to install these additional devices and I shall be prepared to listen to any representations that my hon. Friend may wish to make.

Developing Countries (EEC Preferences)

Mr. Roper: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the improvements in the European Communities' generalised scheme of preferences offered to developing countries for next year.

Mr. Shore: At its meeting of 12th November the EEC Council of Ministers agreed on improvements to the Community's Generalised Preference Scheme for 1975. I am pleased to say that a number of these will be of help to developing Commonwealth countries in Asia. Furthermore, the Council has agreed to a fundamental review early next year of the Community's strategy for the future development of the scheme. I will circulate the details of these conclusions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Roper: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in these negotiations? Does he agree that the extension of the generalised scheme to agricultural products represents an important success? Is this not in itself one step


forward in our renegotiation of the terms of entry?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. While it is welcome that some agricultural products should be included, the House must be made aware that it is a very modest step.

Following are the details:

The most important improvement is one providing for a considerable reduction in the number of products where the preferential trade is subject to particular restrictions. This, along with an overall increase of the order of 15 per cent. in the trade which can benefit from the scheme, affords additional scope for all beneficiaries.

Other improvements, of particular interest to the Asian Commonwealth, represent a further step in the implementation of the Community's joint declaration of intent towards them. They cover the tariff treatment of lute and coir products, of particular interest to India and Bangladesh; a substantial increase in the tariff concessions for tobacco produced by India; an agreement in principle to include a range of tropical oils of interest to South-East Asian developing countries when the trade provisions of the new Convention of Association come into effect; an improved concession on plywood which will be of particular value to Malaysia; and there are a number of small additions to the coverage of the scheme in the agricultural sector.

One of the Government's objectives has been to improve the position of Hong Kong, against which we have to discriminate in the Community's Generalised Preference Scheme. It has been agreed that from next year Hong Kong will be included as a beneficiary for rubber and plastic footwear, which are her major interests in so far as footwear exports are concerned. The Community has also undertaken to look further next year at the question of the exclusion from the scheme of her textiles.

MINEWORKERS (INCENTIVE SCHEME)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Energy, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the miners' ballot on an incentive scheme in the industry.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I have been asked to reply.
The Government, the National Coal Board and the mining unions were parties to the Coal Industry Examination this year, which recommended the introduction of a sound and effective incentive scheme in the industry. The details and the negotiation of such a scheme were, of

course, a matter for the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers.
The particular scheme proposed by the National Coal Board was put last week to the miners so that they could decide through their own democratic machinery whether they were willing to accept it, and a majority have now come down against the scheme.
I am sure that discussions will continue within the industry to see how higher output can be achieved through other means, and the Government welcome the recent statement, of the NUM Executive about reaching production targets. I certainly hope the miners will do all in their power to get the coal the country needs, to assist in carrying through the planned development of the industry and to sustain the social contract.

Mr. Jenkin: The Question was originally tabled to the Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to answer the two or three brief questions that I will put to him. Does he agree that the rejection of this carefully negotiated set of proposals deals a body blow to the Coal industry in the present circumstances? Does he not agree that the rejection is an ill omen for fuel supplies in Britain this winter? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the final report of the tripartite examination, which emphasised the vital importance of a sound and effective incentive scheme leading to a substantial increase in output. What "other means"—I use the Secretary of State's own words—do the Government have in mind to achieve the 120 million tons a year target agreed in the tripartite talks? What steps are the Government taking to secure the achievement of that target?

Mr. Foot: I think that I anticipated some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions in my original reply. I should not be prepared to use the kind of language he used about a body blow to the industry's future or to the achievement of the aims we wish to secure for the country this winter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already answered Questions on that subject. Certainly, in normal circumstances coal stocks are satisfactory for the winter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman


asked me the question, and I have given the answer in exactly the same terms as it was given before.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what means will now be followed to try to secure the productivity which we wish to see and which the miners have said they wish to see in the industry. As I said in my original reply, I have no doubt that there will be fresh discussions between the National Coal Board and the Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. The Government are eager that those discussions should start, and wish them well.

Mr. Kelley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation before the ballot had been considerably exacerbated by certain statements made by people outside the House, and that, having some regard for the result of the ballot, the least said here, the soonest mended?

Mr. Foot: I am not entitled to discour age any comments that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to make in the House. They are entitled to comment upon these matters as they think fit. But I think that everyone who knows anything about what happened in the coalfields in the past week will agree that several statements were made which did not assist the situation.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that recriminations at this stage will not profit anyone, and that those who voted against the scheme did so for a variety of reasons, some of them severely political and some of them genuine? Does he agree that the time might be right to examine the kind of national productivity premium that the Liberal Party advanced last February?

Mr. Foot: What the Liberal Party advanced in February and October was a statutory control of incomes that could have brought the whole thing to a standstill, so we should not return to the proposals of the Liberal Party or to the policy advocated and practised by the Leader of the Opposition. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this much, that I am opposed to recriminations in the matter. As I have already said, I believe that there will be discussions between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board about the future.
The miners have said on many occasions—again last week, when they saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and he had a most cordial welcome at their headquarters in London—that they wish to assist the country in getting the coal it needs.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there was a variety of different reasons why the miners voted against the scheme. Those of us who come from coalfields, and know some of the historical reasons why miners have been opposed to similar schemes, know why the vote went the way it did. What the Government wish to secure is the most amicable discussions between the National Coal Board and the miners' union to see how we may get the coal that only the miners can produce.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my right friend agree that the tripartite discussions, and the conclusions from those discussions, were a direct result of the Wilberforce Report? Does he also agree that in their deliberations on the National Coal Board's offer of an incentive bonus scheme the miners had a reason of historical background for turning the scheme down, on the basis of industrial injury, death and pneumoconiosis in the coalfields? We know the nature of the scheme. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition two important factors? First, will he tell them that nobody in the country will have the necessary coal produced unless he can get the miners to produce it? Secondly, will he tell them of the unanimous resolution passed by the National Union of Mineworkers' Executive when they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in which they pledged full support for any honourable agreement that our Labour Government will make with the union?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need any assistance from me in telling the Opposition what they should think about some of these matters. It is not quite the case, as I recall it, that the proposals under the scheme derived from the Wilberforce Report, although there were references to it or another proposed scheme at the end of the report. The discussions which led to the scheme arose from the steering committee established by the present Government, which covered a far wider range of topics than this incentive scheme or


any other. It covered a plan for the development of the industry over years, and I believe that that plan has been generally welcomed by miners throughout the country. It is on the basis of that general, far-reaching plan that we can still look forward to a proper response to the proposals made, and look forward to the country getting the coal it needs, which can be got only by miners.

Mr. Skeet: As production is likely to be down by about 6 million tons this year, will the right hon. Gentleman safeguard industry and the housewife by ensuring that in a very difficult winter we have available a sufficient supply of coal by imports?

Mr. Foot: I have already replied to that question, quoting what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Mendelson: While accepting that right hon. and hon. Members must have the right to comment on this important event, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not also accept that all those hon. Members representing mining areas know that hysterical attacks upon a decision of a majority of miners are not helpful in the present situation? Does not my right hon. Friend also accept that all that has happened is that a union has, by its own constitutional means, taken a certain decision on a set of proposals put to it by the employers? Is it not in the best interests of the country and everyone else concerned to leave the matter now to the people in the industry to go on organising their own affairs?

Mr. Foot: As usual, I think that there is a great deal of wisdom in what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Speed: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no substantial power cuts this winter?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should put particular Questions about power cuts to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Gentleman knows the arrangements in the House for putting such Questions. I was asked about the incentive scheme and the ballot in the mining industry, and that is the subject I have been dealing with.

"ASIAFREIGHTER" (ESCAPE OF FUMES)

Mr. Teddy Taylor (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the incident on board the "Asiafreighter" at the week-end in which a number of seamen were overcome by fumes escaping from the cargo.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I understand that during the morning of 14th November, four men entered the lower hold of the British-registered vessel "Asiafreighter" on a routine inspection at sea. Some hours later, they became seriously affected by fumes, were flown ashore by helicopter on the morning of 15th November and taken to hospital in Truro, and later flown to hospital in London. They are responding to treatment but I regret to say that they are reported to be still very ill. One other man was subsequently affected to a lesser degree during attempts to ventilate the holds, and he and the rest of the crew were taken ashore for examination and treatment at Falmouth.
I am sure the House would wish to join me in wishing those affected a very speedy recovery. I have appointed an inspector to investigate this incident under Section 728 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House echoes the right hon. Gentleman's hope that the men will soon completely recover. Will the inspector he has appointed also be charged with the task of examining the procedures for notifying port authorities before the arrival of dangerous industrial gases and also of reviewing the arrangements whereby these gases are transported by lorry once they arrive in port?

Mr. Shore: My information is that the ports and the customers concerned should know in advance the character of the cargoes which ships are carrying. I cannot say much more than that at present. Whether it was known in this case is one of the matters which the inspector will have to investigate.
While the subject of the second half of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not fall immediately within my departmental responsibility, I wholly


understand his concern and I will see that the investigation takes account of the whole journey, not merely across the seas but to the particular destinations in the United States and Britain to which it was heading.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the concern felt by his own Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and of the union that helps to send him here to Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that his and my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has an important interest in this matter, as it supplies the men who load and unload these ships? What regulations are we to have to ensure that cargoes containing such dangerous substances are stowed safely in future? What arrangements are to be made to unload this unfortunate vessel, the "Asiafreighter"?

Mr. Shore: When I receive the inspector's report, I shall be looking for any general lessons in it which will enable me to improve the safety of the crews in ships which carry such cargoes.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, all I can say now is that, if the task of unloading the "Asiafreighter" is carried out in this country, we shall take whatever steps are necessary, in conjunction with the Department of Employment, to ensure that it is carried out with the maximum safety and to a carefully controlled plan.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes for a speedy recovery by the four men most seriously affected. Two of them are constituents of mine. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his action in having an inspection carried out under the Merchant Shipping Act. When dangerous and toxic cargoes are being carried, should they not be reported on a separate manifest, and should not the master of the vessel concerned be informed of the appropriate counter-measures or antidotes to use should hazards arise?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but on the first part my clear understanding is that a

copy of the manifest containing a list of dangerous substances being carried should be provided and is normally provided to the master of the ship concerned.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, from the medical point of view, we are gratified that the men involved are making a recovery in hospital? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to state the exact destination of this cargo and for what use it was meant?

Mr. Shore: I am informed that the destination of the cargo was the firm Air Products Ltd., of New Malden, and that it is used in a much diluted form in the processing of electronic parts.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it clearly within the inspector's brief to examine the customers' obligations in general in this context?

Mr. Shore: I think that anyone who ships a dangerous substance—that is to say, whether he is the owner of the ship or the supplier of the goods—has an obligation, certainly under United Kingdom law, to declare those goods and to make them appear in the appropriate part of the manifest.

Mr. Heseltine: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the concern widely expressed for the victims of this tragic event and welcome the inquiry announced by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that in the inquiry the possibility is considered of re-examining the definitions of the products carried to be sure that there is a clear use of language, as opposed to the slightly loose use of language which might, in this case, it has been suggested to me, have confused the people examining the manifest?

Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy, which is shared by the whole House. He asked about the definition of products of a dangerous kind which are entered into the manifest. I would think that this is one of the matters we need to look at carefully, considering whether a case may not have been established for a special category of particularly dangerous substances.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TELEVISION BROADCAST)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The appearance on Weekend Television of the Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA, his admission and defence of the most atrocious of crimes, his threat to the economic, military, political and judicial life of the whole of the United Kingdom, and the sense of outrage felt by all right-thinking members of the community at his appearance.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of the limitations that are mine in making this application, but the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of the rest of the United Kingdom, were outraged that, when the IRA was carrying out cold-blooded murders in Northern Ireland on Sunday, its leader should be appearing on the media, and discussing the cold-blooded murders of two members of the Northern Ireland judiciary. He said that the IRA warned these men and that as they did not resign their offices it murdered them. The time has come when the House should express itself upon this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the weekend appearance of the IRA Chief of Staff on Weekend Television and the threat to the political, judicial and economic life of the United Kingdom.
I have listened carefully to what he has said. I have considered the matter and I do not think that it should be pursued further under Standing Order No. 9.
I think that other ways must be found of pursuing the matter.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on the Standing Order No. 9 and I now call the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) on another matter. I shall come back to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

Later—

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not absolutely certain whether I am allowed to ask you this question and I am not absolutely sure how to ask it. The fact that the basis of my question is of a hypothetical nature makes it even more difficult to ask. Supposing that someone were to seek your guidance on raising a Private Notice Question on a matter of the deepest interest to millions of people, and supposing that you were to turn down the matter after due consideration but that it was then allowed to be raised under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure, would that not put the House in great difficulty?
In fact, this afternoon we had such a situation. The result is that the matter cannot be discussed by other hon. Members in the House because it will not be answered by a Minister. Therefore, the whole matter is shut out. In view of what happened over the weekend on television, it would seem that the House would want an answer from the Government as to their policy in such matters and that it would have been a great advantage for the House had the subject been accepted as a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Speaker: The acceptance of a Private Notice Question depends on my discretion and whether the Private Notice Question is in order. The Standing Order No. 9 procedure is entirely a matter for me. I do not think that I can go into the hypotheses of the hon. Member for Yarmouth any more. Other ways may be found of raising the matter.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Stanbrook: I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an article in page 6 of yesterday's Sunday Telegraph referring to the projected visit to this country of certain Czechoslovak legislators and I ask you to take what you consider to be appropriate action. Brigadier Paul Ward, the Secretary of the United Kingdom Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, is reported as saying:
We will deal firmly with any MPs who try to demonstrate their displeasure or boycott our guests at the Commons.
If he has been correctly reported I do not know what Brigadier Ward has in mind, but the threat of some sanction against Members of Parliament doing what they are perfectly entitled to do constitutes in my opinion a clear breach of privilege. I believe that the House will want to deal firmly with any of its servants or any other persons who try to force their will upon hon. Members in this way.

Mr. Ford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Vice-President of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, perhaps I may assist the House. The quotation to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has referred was made during a telephone conversation on 15th November to Mr. Norman Kirkham of the Sunday Telegraph. I am told that the official concerned recollects that he was asked what would happen if in the House of Commons, while the Czechs were present, there was a demonstration or an attempt to block their progress. I understand that the official replied that in the exceedingly unlikely event of this happening he imagined that those escorting them would deal firmly with such a situation. When the official spoke of "escorting" I am assured that he intended to convey that Members of Parliament solely were concerned.
Further, I am authorised to say that if the impression was given which was rather unfortunately conveyed in the article, the official concerned would wish to apologise unreservedly.

Sir John Hall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Orping-

ton (Mr. Stanbrook) whether he took the precaution of getting in touch with the official concerned and ensuring that he was correctly reported before raising a question of privilege?

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member raises a question of privilege and asks for a ruling on whether the matter should be submitted to the Committee of Privileges, is it in order for a general discussion to take place in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I considered that matter. I was given warning of this and that there might be an intervention and I was advised that on a matter of privilege it was in order for any hon. Members to raise a matter with me now if they desired to do so. I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to pursue the matter in view of what has been said.

Mr. Stanbrook: In view of what I deem to have been an apology on behalf of the official concerned, I am prepared to let the matter rest. It is a matter of public importance. It has been recorded, the public have read it and I believe it is important that the House should know about it. Therefore, the House should record its view of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain where that intervention leaves me. Is the hon. Member seeking to pursue the matter?

Mr. Stanbrook: I do. I propose to tender to you, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the newspaper concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I will rule tomorrow.

BILL PRESENTED

NEW TOWNS BILL

Mr. Secretary Crosland, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. John Silkin, and Dr. John Gilbert, presented under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenues) a Bill to raise the limits imposed by the New Towns Act 1965 on the amounts which may be borrowed by the development corporations for new


towns and the Commission for the New Towns and make provision for the payment of pensions to chairmen of development corporations and of remuneration and allowances to members of committees conducting business for the Commission: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

3.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
With this short Bill the Government aim to cut the throat of the Tory Housing Finance Act at a stroke.
The House will recall the main objections which we levelled against that Act when in Opposition. First, we objected to what it meant by way of public sector rent increases. It meant either 50p, or £1, on rents in year 1; and that was to be followed by further 50p increases, imposed by law, year after year, until the so-called "fair rent" was reached. In practice, the increases would have gone on for ever.
I remind the House that 50p in 1971, when the previous Government's White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" was published, was a very different matter from 50p today. In 1971 the galloping inflation set in train under the previous Government was only just gathering momentum—a momentum which was, of course, intensified by the Housing Finance Act itself. Fifty pence then represented a rise of over 20 per cent. in average unrebated rents, and £1 represented a rise of over 40 per cent. The rise in average earnings at that time was only just above 10 per cent. a year. So our first objection to the Act was that it pushed up rents much faster than earnings, and made the price of one key essential—housing—a factor positively boosting inflation rather than restraining it.
Our second objection was more fundamental. It was that the fixing of rents for individual dwellings was to be taken away from democratically-elected local authorities and put in the hands of those latter-day Star Chambers, the rent scrutiny boards, against whose verdict there was to


be no appeal. That is why I said at the time that the Act
by excluding a large group of our citizens from democratic protection, offended our basic sense of natural justice".
What made the Housing Finance Act offensive was not merely that it took away from local authorities a power which they had always exercised. It was that it transfered these powers from democratic local government to bodies which were also outside the control of the elected national Government—to rent scrutiny boards which were non-elected, unrepresentative and accountable to no one but themselves. That seemed to us to undermine a vital democratic safeguard for the unfortunate council tenant. The Bill removes entirely those features of the Housing Finance Act.
Clause 1 sweeps away "fair rents" in the public sector. It sweeps away the rent scrutiny boards and it sweeps away the system of compulsory, statutory annual rent increases.
For 50 years before the coming of the Housing Finance Act, councillors had conscientiously discharged their responsibilities for setting rents. Elected councillors know their houses, they know their people, and they took their decisions against the whole background of the social and economic character of their community, and in line with the decisions which they took on other public services. They did so in a proper public forum, and they remained to take responsibility for those decision afterwards. Aggrieved tenants—or ratepayers—were free to use all the normal political channels to make a protest, or to seek redress. In the last resort, if they did not like the councillors' decisions, they could vote them out of office. We believe that this is the most proper and satisfactory method of setting rents.
So this Bill restores to local authorities their power to set rents, subject only to the condition that these be "reasonable". The concept of "reasonable" rents was in force for 50 years up to the 1972 Act, and is well understood. It means that councils must strike a reasonable balance between the various interests in their communities. At the lower end, they cannot set rents so low that an unreasonable burden is laid on ratepayers. At the top end, they cannot set rents so

high that they actually make a profit out of the provision of council housing. Within those very broad limits, the decision is theirs.
This provision illustrates in the sharpest form the difference in philosophy between the Opposition and ourselves. The authors of the 1972 Act envisaged a situation where many councils would make an actual profit on their housing—a profit on housing which contains an important social service element. That concept—the generation of profit out of socially necessary housing—is one which we on this side of the House reject, and which this Bill will make impossible.
Under this Bill, local authorities will set their general level of rents as follows. They will calculate year by year what income they will need to maintain their housing service, and expand it as necessary. They will receive substantial Government subsidies, which I shall describe later. They must then decide for themselves how the rest of the burden should be borne as between tenants and ratepayers.
But the general level of rents cannot be divorced from counter-inflationary policy. So Clause 2 contains a reserve power of a general counter-inflationary nature. This is not framed in such a way that the Government could make an order controlling the rents of individual local authorities, or individual dwellings. It is not the business of Government to approve or disapprove the rent policies of district council X or Y. What is the Government's business, should it Prove necessary, is to set broad limits beyond which no authority may go in setting its rents.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: Can the Minister tell me whether the general points he has made about the Bill will apply to the special position of the Barbican, in view of the fact that I gather from correspondence with the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Barbican was always excluded under previous legislation?

Mr. Crosland: The Barbican was excluded under the 1972 Act. I know that my hon. Friend has written twice to the hon. Member and promised a full and


complete reply to this complicated question in a letter which he proposes to write to the Barbican Association.
I turn now to the subsidy structure of the Bill, contained in Clause 3 and, in more detail, in Schedule 1. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) will, I fear, have to work rather harder in Committee discussing these complex provisions than he did during the Committee stage of the 1972 Bill, when his reticence and taciturnity greatly distressed those of us who were then on the Opposition benches. But I assure him that by comparison with the corresponding parts of the 1972 Act these provisions are no more than a little light bed-time reading.
The underlying principle is that subsidies should be adequate to enable local authorities to get on with the job, without imposing an unacceptable burden on their rentpayers or ratepayers. This job is huge. In many areas there is still an absolute shortage of homes, and no realistic prospect of anyone but the local authorities making good that shortage. London is the prime, but far from being the only, example of such an area. Some areas still have a large number of slums beyond the reach of improvement, which need to be cleared and replaced.
Next, there is the pressing need for more public ownership of privately-rented houses. There are the many families who even five years ago might have aspired to buying a house but have had that aspiration snatched away by the savage increase in house prices in recent years, and who must now look to the local council if they are to have any hope of a home of their own. So the job is huge. We have told local authorities that money, assistance and advice are available on a more extended scale than ever before.
But the assistance must not only be adequate; it must also be purposeful. The Tory 1972 Act provided subsidies for new building in the form purely of assistance to the total deficit in the housing revenue account of each authority. But it did not prove effective. Conservative Ministers, including the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who we welcome here today, spoke brave words when the measure was before the House. We did not have to wait long to see the reality. In the year following that Act—1973—the number of houses started in

the public sector was the lowest since the end of the war.
Today I am happy to say that, largely due to the actions of this Government, the number of houses going into contract shows an increase of 35 per cent. over last year, and this will be reflected in later figures of starts and completions, that point —

Mr. Michael Latham: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why in the first quarter of 1974—that is, under the Housing Finance Act 1972–36,400 houses were started in the public sector, exactly the same as in the first quarter of 1971 under the subsidy structure introduced by Lord Greenwood of Rossendale?

Mr. Crosland: It just shows a certain consistent pattern in these matters. I will look at the detailed figures with the greatest interest, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will answer the question when he replies. The critical fact is that in contrast to the past three years under a Conservative Government we now see a marked and encouraging upswing in council house building. The subsidies provided in this Bill are part of an overall policy aimed at maintaining just such a trend.
The new subsidy system comprises five elements—the basic element, the new capital costs element and the supplementary financing element, all to be paid from 1975–76 onwards; the high costs element, to be paid from 1976–77 onwards; and the special element to be paid for 1975–76 only.
First, an authority's basic element of subsidy for 1975–76 will, subject to certain safeguards, be equal to the amount of subsidy paid to that authority for 1974–75, under the Housing Finance Act. It is intended as a strong base on which to build the other elements.
Secondly, there is the new capital costs element. This will meet 66 per cent. of the loan charges which authorities must incur in buying land, building houses and improving houses. It will also help towards the cost of buying houses—whether houses which have been standing empty, or old tenanted houses—under our policy of social ownership.
It will also be available—this is a special feature—to help towards the costs


of putting these old houses in decent order. This should be helpful both to London and to the large industrial cities where the need to take over houses and put them in order is desperate and pressing. Sixty-six per cent. is a rate of subsidy which has never been exceeded in the past. It will continue for subsequent years. It is a gross rate and as such will be significantly better for authorities than the rate in the Housing Finance Act, which was 75 per cent. of the costs, including maintenance, but net of the rent income.

Mr. Peter Fry: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

Mr. Crosland: I am reluctant to give way too many times because a large number of Members wish to speak.

Mr. Fry: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 66 per cent. subsidy will be based on the loans pool rate, which I estimate is now 10½ per cent.? If a council is borrowing at 13 per cent. to build new houses, instead of being a 66 per cent. subsidy it reduces to about 50 per cent.

Mr. Crosland: It will be on the pool globe rate. The cost of the subsidy will be about £110 million next year and £225 million in 1976–77.
The third subsidy is the supplementary financing element—and this is relevant to the question of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). This is designed to help with the refinancing of old debt. As local authorities repay old, lower interest debt and have to replace it by new borrowing at higher rates of interest, their loan charges will obviously rise. These additional loan charges will carry a rate of subsidy of 33 per cent. This seems to us a fair proportion of the burden to be shared between the tenant, taxpayer and ratepayer, and it is not too far from the additional relief given to an owner-occupier when—as used to happen so often under the Conservative Party—the interest on his mortgage rises.
Fourthly, the high costs subsidy is to be paid from 1976–77. It will give additional help to those local authorities whose costs per dwelling are significantly higher than the average. The authorities qualifying for this element of subsidy are likely

to be primarily the inner London boroughs and the GLC, which are operating in areas where costs are, and historically have been, generally substantially higher than average.
It has, however, become clear that quite a number of authorities will be facing particularly large cost increases in 1975–76, compared with this year, on a scale which warrants additional financial support. The high costs element, which is designed to do a different job, would have helped some but not all of these authorities. Accordingly, the special element will be paid to local authorities with such additional costs in order to help to close the gap between housing revenue account income and housing revenue account expenditure and take some of the burden off rents and/or rates. This special element will be paid in 1975–76 instead of the high costs element, which will now be paid from 1976–77. Those authorities which might have expected to qualify for the high costs element as described in the earlier proposals—primarily the London authorities—will benefit at least to the same extent by the special element, and, in addition, authorities outside the Greater London area with increasing costs will also receive additional aid.
This special element subsidy was not in the Bill as introduced in July. It results from our further consideration and consultation with the local authority associations. Rents will remain frozen until the end of the financial year. But steep increases immediately after the freeze would be quite unacceptable in the light of the Government's counter-inflationary policies and we want to avoid putting local authorities in a position where very sharp increases are inescapable.
The special element will put an average and prudent local authority in the position of being able to balance its accounts if it makes a moderate increase in its rate fund contribution and a moderate rent increase. By "a moderate rent increase" I mean an increase which will certainly mean that the average tenant will have suffered a smaller increase in rents in two years of Labour government than he would have suffered in one year alone under the Conservative Party.
Of course, rents cannot remain frozen for ever. Costs of maintenance and repair are going up all the time, and


there are the needs of an expanding building programme to be met. The Exchequer will help with generous subsidies, and the ratepayer will continue to contribute at the local authority's discretion. However, a good part of the money must inevitably and rightly come from rents. But, at the same time, rents are a key price of particular significance in the context of the social contract. Our main weapon for keeping them under control is the level of Government subsidy. The subsidies provided in this Bill will enable local authorities to hold rent increases to moderate and reasonable levels.
I turn to the question of the private rented sector. Clause 7 of the Bill implements the Government's commitment—I quote from our manifesto—
to ensure that rent increases in the private sector will be limited by Government action".
It does so by providing for the phasing of increases in "fair rents".
The Government have not yet made decisions about a long-term policy for private sector rents—about whether we keep the present system, or amend it, or repeal it. We shall be considering all these matters, and I shall say a word later about the general review of housing finance which we are undertaking. But in the interim we believe that something needs to be done about increases in "fair rents". At the moment, the whole amount of any increase falls to be paid in a single year. A tenant can easily get a demand for an extra £1, £2 or £3 a week, payable in one lump, and this can impose an intolerable burden.
We are providing that increases exceeding 40p a week—apart from increases attributable to increases in the cost of providing services—should be phased in two or three annual stages according to size. The details are set out in Schedule 2. I know that some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), have argued that this provision does not go far enough and that we should impose a rigid ceiling on the allowable percentage increases in "fair rents". But, with respect to my hon. Friends, they underestimate the difficulties and overestimate the advantages of what they propose.
As to the difficulties—and we have looked into this matter in detail—

such proposals would be appallingly hard to draft. Moreover, they would create a growing and confusing gap between the "fair rent" of a property and the recoverable rent—that is, between the "fair rent" and the rent which the landlord was entitled to collect. This would undermine the whole basis of the "fair rent" system.
But all this would produce very little advantage. "Fair rents" have on average been rising at 7 per cent. a year—a good deal lower probably than many of us supposed. Under the proposals in the Bill, it will be very seldom indeed that annual increases approach the present rate of general inflation. Therefore, private rents will be a restraining factor in the total inflationary situation, and the Government and I think that this is a strong and adequate safeguard of tenants' interests and is certainly strong enough as an interim measure.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Crosland: I would rather not give way, not out of any discourtesy, but this is a complicated Bill and many Members wish to take part in the debate. I dare say that the Committee stage will be sufficiently long to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and anybody else.
I come to the question of controlled rents. Section 35 of the Housing Finance Act introduced an indefensible provision whereby controlled rents were decontrolled by bands of rateable value, irrespective of the condition of the property. This enabled many landlords to reap a windfall gain which they had done absolutely nothing to earn. We bitterly opposed this in Committee and promised in our manifesto that we would put a stop to further decontrol on homes without basic amenities. The Bill implements that pledge by providing that no controlled tenancy will cease to be controlled by reference to its rateable value. The only way decontrol will be allowed to occur to a sitting tenant is if, first, the property is brought into good condition, having regard to its age, character and location, and, secondly, it is provided with all the basic amenities for the sole use of the occupier.
Some landlords will not, for a variety of reasons, take the necessary steps to improve their property to the standard at which it qualifies for decontrol. In that situation we do not want tenants to suffer unnecessarily. We certainly do not, above all, want the property to be allowed to rot, so that when it is finally taken into municipal ownership there is no option left but to demolish it. So we are giving landlords who carry out repairs to controlled dwellings the right to raise the rents which they charge by 12½ per cent. of their expenditure on repairs completed after the Bill comes into force. That provision is, of course, modelled on the existing provisions for the increase in controlled rents in respect of improvements. Like them, it relates to the landlord's net expenditure, excluding any improvement grant he might have received. Like them, it entitles the tenant to challenge the increase in the courts if he thinks the repairs are unnecessary or excessively costly.
Before closing, I should like to draw the attention of the House to one more provision of the Bill. Schedule 4 consigns to history the default provisions of the 1972 Act. The only practical basis for any local government legislation is one which recognises the status and responsibilities of democratic local authorities, but the basis of the Tory Act was that of giving orders, and of having penal sanctions to enforce those orders. Local authorities simply cannot and should not be treated in that way. People's respect for the law is inseparable from the law's respect for people. The 1972 Act treated councillors as puppets. That it was defied in consequence was deplorable but not, alas, surprising.
The week before last in my statement on late implementation I told the House how we intended to carry forward our policy from the position laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4th April. Now I add to that statement the proposed removal of these unwise—and now unnecessary—provisions of the Housing Finance Act which helped to bring about the unhappy situation we inherited.
I turn briefly to the longer term. The subsidy provisions of the Bill are of an interim nature. They established a system which will ensure that local authority building does not flounder for lack of

money, and which at the same time will keep rents at a tolerable level. But it leaves many issues untouched. I was astounded to find, on taking over as Secretary of State, how flimsy was the basis on which Government housing policy was then built. No one had any clear idea how many houses the country needed, or where. No one seemed to have compared the Government help given to owner-occupiers on the one hand and tenants on the other. Perhaps less surprisingly, there was no attempt to see how we could achieve greater equality in the distribution of the housing we have available.
I am convinced that we need a firmer foundation than that for housing policy. I am, therefore, setting up within the Department a searching and far-reaching inquiry into housing finance. The aim is to get back to fundamentals, to get beyond a housing policy of "ad hoc-ery" and crisis management, and to find out precisely what needs to be done if we are to get on top of this desperate social problem for once and for all.
So discredited is the Housing Finance Act that I thought the Bill would receive an unopposed Second Reading tonight but, judging by the Opposition amendment, that is not the case. That being so there is one question which we are entitled to have answered by the Opposition. It is a question about which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—who soars to greater and greater heights—uncharacteristically remained silent during the election campaign, but I hope that the hon. Member for Chelsea will reveal a new style of open opposition by telling the House the answer this afternoon. The question is: what is Conservative policy on council rents?
If the Opposition divide the House this evening, one thing at least will be clear. They will prove that they are prepared to vote to keep their discredited Housing Finance Act on the statute book and that beneath their rhetorical guff about national unity they are still willing to stir up the fires of conflict between council tenants and the rest of the nation—in contrast with Labour's policy of bringing equal help to all types of housing tenants—owner-occupiers, council tenants and private tenants.
The hon. Member for Chelsea made his debut at Question Time last Wednesday, when he once again suggested that the Labour Party had it in for the owner-occupier. That shows an extraordinary nerve. Under the Labour Government of 1964–70 the proportion of owner-occupiers for the first time exceeded 50 per cent. Under the Conservative Government of 1970–74 house prices doubled, the mortgage rate went up inexorably from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent. and we ended up with a total mortgage famine and the private house building programme in a state of complete collapse. Let the hon. Gentleman ask any owner-occupier or would-be owner-occupier whether he would prefer the experience of 1964–70 of that of 1970–74. He would get an unambiguous answer.
I believe that the Conservatives are capable of far worse than that. The House will recall the original intention behind the Housing Finance Act. It was clearly announced, not by the then Secretary of State for the Environment but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The object was to bring about a reduction in Government help to council tenants, to lead to a saving in public expenditure on housing subsidies of from £100 million to £200 million a year by the middle of the decade. We know the reality turned out differently. In the years following the passage of the Act inflation went through the roof. The rapid inflation in local authority costs meant that subsidies did not decline as they were intended to decline.
Let us be under no illusion that the Conservatives would have let that situation continue had they by any mischance been returned to office. Faced by the need to pay for the extravagant promise of 9½ per cent. mortgages, the Tories would, of course, have gone back to their original intentions and cut help to council tenants to the bone. As Government help went down, so rent increases would have gone up. Increases of 50p would long since have become a thing of the past. The years of the Housing Finance Act would have been remembered by tenants as the golden age of stable rents. Increases would have become steeper and steeper, and we would have been talking about increases of pounds a week. How they would have squared that approach

with any pretence of an anti-inflationary policy, let alone with their talk of national unity, completely escapes me.
I believe that the large majority of the House will join me in rejecting the whole Tory approach. I commend the Bill to the House.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while recognising the pressing need for houses, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will do little to meet that need, but will back-track instead to a system of indiscriminate subsidies, haphazard rents, and the certainty of further burdens for the ratepayers.
The rules about the declaration of interests were changed during my temporary absence from the House, so first, I had better declare an interest as the totally unpaid chairman of a voluntary housing association in case that interest in any way impinges on the Bill or on what I have to say.
The Bill is important for itself—and the right hon. Gentleman has told us some of its implications—and also because, as I think he recognises, it illustrates a difference between the approach of the two parties to housing. We can all agree that there is no higher social priority than housing, and we both see the tackling of the housing black spots that still deface our society as, in a sense, preventive medicine. By investing money in housing we can avoid having to spend money on other aspects of the social services, because the strains which flow from bad housing can put a burden on every other branch of the social services.
We all want to make progress in this field, and, indeed, we have made progress. Anyone who, like me, has been a parliamentary candidate or a Member of Parliament for a London constituency for the better part of the last 20 years will acknowledge that there has been substantial progress in housing, but the revolution of rising expectations affects housing perhaps more than any other social area. People's housing expectations are continually rising. Not since the days of Harold Macmillan's time as Housing Minister can either party be really satisfied with its housing record. As a result there is still widespread dissatisfaction on housing—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Scott: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I had hoped that he would allow me to finish the sentence.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the answer at the end of his sentence, but perhaps he has not. Is he aware, when he talks of the so-called golden era of Macmillan, that the real boom in house-building—the biggest ever boom—was in the Labour Government in the period 1966–68 when more than 400,000 houses were constructed on average over three successive years? The reason we were able to do that was that we put a complete clamp on office building and diverted those resources to housing. That is what we have to do again.

Mr. Scott: I do not think that we are likely to agree on that.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my hon. Friend refute the sedentary remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary about our housing record? It was the right hon. Gentleman who remarked in 1970 that the Labour Government did not give to the housing programme anything like the attention that was necessary.

Mr. Scott: We regret that we are only able to hear the Patronage Secretary from a seated position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I was seeking to ask the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) how he could defend the Conservative Government's record from 1970 to 1973.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman wanted to stand the whole thing on its head.

Mr. Scott: In the course of my speech I shall be dealing with the wider issues of housing policy as well as with the particular question of the Second Reading of the Bill. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the record of both parties on housing, and it is all the more depressing that the Labour Party should have produced a package of policies which are so irrelevant to the nation's housing needs.
Labour seems to have put at the top of its batting order the provision of security of tenure for all furnished tenants. This has dried up the supply, as was fore-

cast would happen. The Labour Government has also sought an extension of municipalisation which nobody wants and they seek to indemnify those who would flout laws passed by Parliament during the passage of legislation in Standing Committee on which the Secretary of State for the Environment and I served. If these are the priorities which the Labour Government set themselves instead of house building and the improvement of older homes, then the whole nation will judge them harshly.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that what dried up the supply of furnished tenancies was the activities of the winklers and speculators who found they could get much more for properties with vacant possession than for properties with tenants in occupation? That was the real cause of the drying up. The Labour Government tried to protect the few remaining furnished tenancies in the only way they possibly could.

Mr. Scott: I suspect that Time Out may be read rather more on the Labour benches than it is on the Opposition benches, but I must tell the House that in its most recent edition, in an article on the 1974 Rent Act, one sees in the fourth paragraph:
The situation realy hit me when I walked into an accommodation agency a few weeks ago. They had neatly pinned up the Department of the Environment's advice on the new rights of furnished tenants, and written above it, 'This is why we have no flats for you'.
That is the effect of the Labour Government's Act and the advice they have given. It is Labour's Act and their advice which has dried up that supply.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) fought my previous constituency, both times unsuccessfully, in the 1950s. He said a moment ago that the desire for municipalisation was one possessed in the Labour Party but not among tenants. Is he aware that many people in that constituency petitioned the council to have the housing in which they were tenants taken over by the council because they recognised that, despite all the protection in the law for tenants, municipalisation was the only effective way in the long run of their being secure from the winklers and property companies mentioned by my hon. Friend


the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)?

Mr. Scott: The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people want to own their own homes. That is the direction in which our housing policy will be aimed.
The Labour Party likes to consider itself a radical party. As this Bill again makes clear, Labour is still hidebound by the findings of the 1885 Royal Commission on Housing of Working-Classes and Labour's thinking on housing has not moved much beyond that.
I see the aims of housing policy as trying to meet the changing needs of the people and where possible of anticipating their hopes for the future in terms of the homes they wish to occupy. Every survey which I have seen shows that about 75 per cent. of our people want to be able to own their own homes, and we should be bending our efforts to that end. That is why we put forward the election package we did in October as the central unshakable foundation of a housing policy based on choice.
Of course Conservatives are not opposed to council housing but if we see that as high a percentage of people as possible are able to own their own homes, then councils and the voluntary housing movement will increasingly be able to concentrate on housing the needy and the elderly and on progressing with slum clearance. They could also concentrate on helping the young, single people who are being squeezed out of furnished accommodation as a result of the Rent Act. This will be possible simply because councils will be allowed freedom to concentrate on these aspects because more people will own their own homes.
I hope that when councils and the voluntary housing associations operate on this scale, they will remember that whereas it is easy for us to talk of housing policy through our end of the telescope, for most people what is involved is their homes. Therefore, we should look at housing policy on a human scale.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has already mentioned some exchanges in Question Time last week and there were two interventions which I found most interesting. The Minister for Housing and Construction, as reported in column 390 of the OFFICIAL REPORT

on 13th November, clearly envisaged a time when all rented accommodation would come into social ownership. Then there was an interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton), who suggested that the time had come for the Greater London Council to take over all housing powers and responsibilities in London and to remove those powers from the boroughs. Labour Members must understand the increasing resentment of people at bigness and the lack of identity that can flow from it. This is true of industry as it is of housing.

Mr. Stallard: It was the Tory Party who went in for reorganisation.

Mr. Scott: There is still increasing resentment on this subject and people want to control their own environment. This applies with particular force in housing. Because this personal dimension is so important, we seek to put emphasis on home ownership. About 51 per cent. of our people at the moment own their own homes. In Australia and Canada the figures are about 70 per cent. and I see no reason why we should not set that sort of target in this country.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is fond of criticising our proposals. He ought to know that the 9½ per cent. mortgage pledge would have cost about £180 million to £200 million. But the right hon. Gentleman had already announced extra help of £350 million for council houses, of which £200 million is earmarked especially for municipalisation. If those resources are available, we would very much rather they went to help young couples buy their own first homes than to enable councils to go into the market place and buy.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees people similar to those whom I see on Saturday mornings, who are on incomes of £40 to £50 a week and have savings of up to £1,500. They are quite unable to purchase even the most miserable hovel at £8,000. If there is no rented accommodation for such people, what hope have they?

Mr. Scott: It is precisely because the Conservative Party wishes to help those people to buy their own homes that we put forward the proposals that we did in our election manifesto.
The Bill sees council housing as the main vehicle of the Government's housing drive. We do not, because we do not believe that to be the people's choice. People see the security, the element of saving, the protection against inflation and the freedom which come from owning their own homes. That is what makes home ownership attractive and important. From the cost point of view, too, there is no doubt that the nation would be better off if it concentrated on expanding home ownership rather than, as in this Bill, on council housing.
The debate about relative benefits will doubtless continue for a long time. But I hope that the Secretary of State gave his attention to the January report of the Housing Research Foundation on home ownership for lower income families. That showed that in terms of a £10,000 house, which is the average cost—

Mr. Stallard: Where?

Mr. Scott: —whether it be in the public or the private sector—[Interruption.] If—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is looking towards the Chair, apparently for some assistance. I know that it is customary to indulge in a degree of rough and tumble, but I hope that hon. Members will try to keep it at a reasonable level.

Mr. Scott: I do not object to Opposition Members having a go at me. It is when they have a go at each other that I object.
The cost to public funds in the first year of launching someone into council tenantry as opposed to home ownership is in the ratio of 3 to 1. It is estimated that £280 is the average cost of option mortgage tax relief to help someone to begin to own his own home, whereas the cost to public funds in the first year of launching someone into council tenantry is no less than £900. If we talk of launching people into these two alternative types of accommodation, we give three times as much if we launch him into council tenantry than if we launch him into home ownership—and it is new homes which matter.
The Secretary of State is fond of quoting figures about the relative average benefits to council tenants and to owner-occupiers

buying their homes on mortgages. He always omits to point out that in dividing the total amount of tax relief which goes to help people to buy their own homes, it has to be divided not just by the number of people currently getting the benefit of that relief but by the total number of people who are buying or have bought their homes on mortgages. In council accommodation, we have more or less permanently to subsidise the accommodation. In the case of owner-occupiers, we do it only over the period of the mortgage, which at the most will be 25 or 30 years.
The Bill is also trailed to repeal the Housing Finance Act. The Secretary of State spoke in rather colourful terms about his aim of doing that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers with pleasure the time that we spent in Committee considering the Housing Finance Bill, and I look forward to serving with him on the Standing Committee which considers the present Bill and to approaching the task of improving the legislation in the constructive spirit which he and his colleagues showed towards the Housing Finance Bill. The time that we spend in this Committee will be of the same sort of order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to deprive himself of the pleasure of having a replay of our previous contest.
What does the Bill do? The twin arches of the Housing Finance Act are a national system of rebates and allowances and the extension of fair rents, which had already been introduced by the Labour Party to private tenants, to council and housing association tenants.
If the Bill becomes an Act in its present form, the rebate and allowance system will be retained, as will fair rents for private tenants and housing association tenants. The main effect will be to replace fair rents for council tenants with what the Government are pleased to call "reasonable" rents.
The Bill also changes subsidy arrangements. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for his partial explanation of what these are, but I shall ask for a little further explanation about them later. It phases private rent increases and ends decontrol by reference to rateable value. There is a great deal of technical detail which we shall look forward to exploring in Committee.
At one stage during the Committee proceedings on the Housing Finance Bill, I was invited to become acting PPS to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The Bill took on a fresh flavour when I saw the briefing notes from which Ministers were working. It may not be proper for hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee to see a Minister's brief notes, but there is a lot to be said for hon. Members dealing with a technical Bill of this kind having a somewhat fuller Explanatory Memorandum than is customary. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider that suggestion.
What does the change from "fair" to "reasonable" mean for council tenants? At present, under the Housing Finance Act, the rent depends on the standard and amenities of accommodation, with rebates and allowances for those in need. The aim of the Housing Finance Act was to see that families occupying similar accommodation with similar means paid similar rents. That was the basis of the fair rents system. It is that which is reversed by this Bill. Instead, the rent paid will depend, as I see it, on the state of the housing revenue account of the housing authority concerned, and that is likely to be capricious, anomalous and unfair between different families.
If a rent system is to be fair, surely it should be reasonable between three parties: the tenant who has to pay, and the ratepayer and taxpayer who have to subsidise the rent. Now we are to have a system whereby, if a local authority has a large stock of new houses, it will have to charge higher rents than if its housing stock is tilted to older houses. But individual families occupying similar accommodation and having similar means may be asked to pay vastly different rents, depending on the local authority area in which they live. To me, that has the smack of a truly haphazard system of rents.
Will "reasonable" rents be lower? The Secretary of State began to give us an answer, but I am not sure how far he got. Are they likely to be lower, or are they likely to rise more slowly than fair rents would have been liable to rise? Perhaps the Minister for Housing and Construction will say what Clause 1(2) means when it inserts:

In determining rents for their houses, a local authority shall have regard to the terms of their rebate scheme under section 18 of the Housing Finance Act 1972.
At the moment, the subsection sticks out like a sore thumb and appears to have little meaning. I suspect that it can only mean that, having had the benefits of a rebate scheme, a "reasonable" rent is likely to be higher than it would otherwise be.
On 5th November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) spoke of the flats which at present are being built in Westminster, the cost rent of which is no less than £55 a week, whereas a fair rent has been set which is of the order of £10 of £11. What would be regarded as a "reasonable" rent? It seems unlikely to be any lower than the fair rent set under the terms of the 1972 Act.
Why have the Government set about this change? If fair rents are good enough for private tenants and for housing association tenants, as they still think they are, then why are they not good enough for those who live in municipal accommodation? It is not because council tenants are poorer than private tenants. We know that on balance they are not. Indeed, that would be irrelevant now that we have a national system of rent rebates and allowances.
The right hon. Gentleman took particular offence at the possibility that local authorities might sometimes make profits out of their housing revenue accounts. I could see no argument against that, particularly when, under the 1972 Act, those profits were to be creamed off and used in the areas of greatest housing need. If that was objectionable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, why could they not simply have introduced a Bill which would have allowed local authorities to spend any surplus on their housing revenue accounts on any other desirable social objective, such as help for the disabled locally or any other laudable objective that local authorities might set themselves and agree with central Government?
The Secretary of State thought that local democracy ranked very strong. He talked about it in rather colourful terms. However, rents are now frozen by order from the Government. There is power in Clause 2 to limit increases as part of the counter-inflationary package. Therefore,


the increase in local democracy is pretty limited under the terms of the Bill.
Perhaps I might ask another specific question which the hon. Gentleman will answer in winding up the debate. If such an order is made on a local authority, where will the burden fall? If rents are to be held down, and therefore the housing revenue account for a particular authority is to be kept down—and there is no subsidy in the Bill which I can find—will the burden again be on the poor ratepayer to meet any extra burden stemming from this provision?
I do not believe that the Bill has been introduced to repeal this part of the Housing Finance Act for any of those reasons. I believe that it stems from the hidebound thinking of the Government and the pressure put upon them from below the gangway because the Tories dared to attack one of the sacred cows of the Tribune Croup by extending fair rents to all tenants, including those in council accommodation.
I believe that because haphazard rents stem from the Bill the subsidies will also be indiscriminate. The right hon. Gentleman took us some way along the line in explaining these subsidies, but I should like him or his hon. Friend in winding up the debate to explain still further. The July version of the Bill in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum referred to total subsidies for 1975–76 of £465 million. That figure has been increased in this Bill to £700 million. No fewer than four new subsidies are being introduced by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had a Written Answer on Friday which showed that existing subsidies for 1974–75 are already running at £692 million.
I do not think that the Government can have it both ways. Are reasonable rents or rate contributions going to be higher than envisaged so that we can get four new subsidies out of a miniscule increase in the total subsidies to be paid or, as seems more likely, are the subsidy figures in the Financial Memorandum wildly out of line so that the total burden on the taxpayer is likely to be well in excess of the figure mentioned? We should like an answer to that question when the Minister winds up tonight.
The Government have clearly decided to subsidise council housing rather than home ownership. I disagree philosophic-

ally with that, but there are grave practical objections as well. The Government now appear to see local authorities as the main agents for future house building, as the sole buyers of development land, as the sole source of grant for those who wish to develop and the virtual monopoly providers of rented homes. It will be too much of a burden for local authorities to do all those jobs. If they were to do them properly it would mean the creation of too massive a bureaucracy and still greater burdens on ratepayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will return to that theme in more detail on Wednesday. I do not want to trespass on his territory.
Surely we should be seeking to diversify our efforts in housing. We should be trying to spread home ownership to more people. We should try to envisage an increasing rôle for the voluntary housing movement both in renting and in providing a bridge from renting into home ownership. There should be a far more imaginative use of co-ownership schemes to get people into home ownership. We should not be sinking into the quagmire of more public ownership, which is expensive and largely unwanted.
I want home ownership for all who can afford it so that local authorities and the voluntary housing movement can launch an attack to meet the needs of special groups, and I want to attack the problems of the million of older unfit homes and to tackle the housing black spots which are still a disgrace in our society.
In our Bill, which was largely taken over and made into legislation by the Labour Government during the summer, housing action areas featured large. I was hoping that by now we might have begun to see some housing action areas being designated by local authorities. There is certainly a crying need for them. Perhaps the Minister in winding up will tell us when we are likely to see the first of these areas. I have heard rumours that local authorities throughout the country are ready to designate and are anxious to get ahead with the work, but that they have been held up by delays in the Department of the Environment.
Above all, we should be getting home building and home improvements going again. We need urgent Government measures to ensure that the building starts begin to rise and that the improvement


grant figures again begin to rise instead of steadily decreasing. I am sad that the ragbag of policies that we have so far had on housing from the Government, of which the Bill is yet a further sad step, will do little to achieve these aims.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Liberal Party's views on this complicated subject have been clearly set out on a number of occasions, but particularly in a policy document, "Forward with the Liberals", published in 1973, on which we fought the last two General Elections, and in which we said:
The Liberal Party approves the principle of economic rents offset for those on low incomes by Government benefits. For this reason the Liberal Parliamentary Party supported, with major reservations, the White Paper 'Fair Deal for Housing'. They felt unable to support the proposals set out in the Housing Finance Bill, however, and consequently voted against it. These proposals which eventully passed into law, involve means-tested rebates on a colossal scale. Liberals not only object to the number of means-tested benefits on grounds of principle, we also appreciate that the take-up of means-tested benefits by those eligible is low. We advocate that the offset against economic rents should be through a housing credit as part of the tax credit system."—
I do not think that we shall get that yet but it is a long-term aim—
In addition, the financial provisions of the Housing Finance Act are such that the Government is, in effect, operating its initial scheme of rent rebates and allowances at the expense of ratepayers and better-off council tenants.
The Act involved a loss of local authority freedom and autonomy. The Liberal Party believes that local councils should retain their freedom and autonomy within the framework of national policy. They should continue to determine levels of rents, rebates and balances of profit and loss. They should continue to exercise their local judgment on local needs. In the last analysis, they should have primary responsibility for the public sector. If larger administrative units are required, they should be modelled on a regional basis."—
I suggest to the Secretary of State, who is just leaving the Chamber, that he should think of the housing problem on a regional basis.
A further Liberal objection to the old Act is levelled at its failure to provide for a housing repairs account. This could mean that local authorities will tend to skimp repairs if higher spending entails drawing deeply on the rate fund to support housing revenue. Councils with a progressive attitude towards

tenants and with a desire to improve and modernise property will be penalised. There is a far greater need for renovation and repairs to existing stocks of houses. I could produce photographs of no fewer than 50 properties in the county town of Newport in the Isle of Wight that are standing empty and rotting.
We object also to the imprecise formula for calculating fair rents. It does not take enough account of the difference in circumstances between the public and private sectors.
Dealing with this Bill we note from Clause 1 that Parts V and VI of the old Act are to be repealed and housing authorities are to have the opportunity again to fix the rents of their own council dwellings. This move is to be welcomed and the gesture will be appreciated throughout local government circles.
Part V of the Housing Act 1957, which I have studied, is not very explicit in its definition of a reasonable rent and, despite the opening remarks of the Secretary of State which I shall read with interest, I suggest that this is the matter to which the Government should pay more attention in Committee.
What is to be the rôle of the rent officer in future? Is he to be consulted by local authorities on the question of fixing reasonable rents? The idea of a rent officer was set out by a previous Housing Minister, Mr. Richard Crossman. The rent officer has a lot of knowledge of what is involved and can pass on a great deal of useful advice. As the Association of Municipal Authorities rightly said in its memorandum when referring to Clause 2, the restriction of rents in the furtherance of counter-inflation policies must not be permitted to contribute to the inflation of rates. No doubt this matter will come up again during our debate on Wednesday.
Clause 3 provides for no fewer than five elements of subsidy. I was grateful to hear the comment by the Secretary of State. It is almost impossible for a layman to comprehend the complicated nature of these different payments. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's explanations and I shall refresh my memory on them later.
When are we going to make a clean sweep and devise a more straightforward


and more clearly understood system such as we have been calling for for some years? One can only comment that the capital costs element fixed at two-thirds of the permissible cost does not look high enough to get things moving. The supplementary financing element does not take account of all the increases that it should. It should include repairs and maintenance, while the special element subsidy, which is welcome, needs further elucidation. Perhaps we shall get that in Committee.
Perhaps the strongest criticism of the Bill is against Clause 4, which deals with rent rebates. Local authorities will have to find from their own limited resources 25 per cent. of the cost of this service. This is bound to place increased pressure on them, as will the costs of administration. Should not the Government now accept the responsibility for bearing a higher proportion of the cost involved? I accept the argument that some costs should fall on local authorities, but what about 80 per cent., or even 90 per cent. of the total being found by the Government? Inevitably, the poorer areas such as the far West, the North and Wales will have fewer resources in the rate fund to bolster rebates yet those are the areas in which the largest number of people will apply for them. On a different scale, the same will happen in London. The poorer boroughs with poorer tenants will get caught both ways.
The Bill discriminates against the private sector in that the provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act will apparently still apply to this area of housing provision. Moreover, the relevant clauses which rightly make it possible to phase rent increases appear extremely complicated and I am sure need further elucidation. I should not like to have to advise private landlords on this matter. [Interruption.] Let us face the fact that there are still some decent landlords. I receive many letters from old ladies, as I am sure other hon. Members do, who were left a house because its purchase originally was regarded as a wise investment, and they still have tenants on low rents. It will be difficult to explain parts of the Bill to them. One would need to be a genius to do so.
As far as I can discover, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain a repairs account. I do not

know whether that is in fact so, but I do not see any provision for it in the Bill and if I am right the omission is to be regretted.
Subject to those strictures, I give a cautious welcome to the Bill and intend to support its Second Reading later this evening.
If I may now deal with the amendment tabled by the Official Opposition, I should like to remind them of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 15th November 1971 during the debate on the Housing Finance Bill. He said:
The Government"—
that is the Conservative Government—
have introduced what they fondly imagine is a radical reform. It is nothing of the sort. The Bill will not build more houses. It will not house homeless families. It will certainly not provide decent homes for all families at a price within their means. It will virtually nationalise all public housing, taking away the effective control of housing from local councils while paying lip service to the idea of local housing. It is, in effect, a means of swopping the sources of subsidy finance, but local rates are totally inadequate to bear the burden.
The Bill will seriously reduce the real standard of living of a great number of people. It will force many on lower incomes to take cheaper houses which are too small and in the wrong place. It will create in housing two nations. In one will be those who are forced to buy on mortgage houses they cannot really afford, and in the other will be those who cannot afford the rent and will have to go cap in hand for a rebate; two nations—a nation of debtors and a nation of beggars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 100–1.]
How prophetic my hon. Friend was, and how wrong my hon. Friends would be today to take seriously the amendment tabled by the official Opposition.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) for his summary, but I thought earlier on that we were treating the housing problem nothing like seriously enough. The situation is tragic. Of course it is the local authorities who will have to take the strongest measures to deal with the problem. No one in the private sector will be able to tackle this. We want increased home ownership, and we want private housing to get off its feet, but the situation now is that nobody earning less than £70 or £80 a week has a hope of getting a mortgage to buy a home, so people must look to the local authority for housing.
I was grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said at Brighton when he spoke about low-cost housing and mobile homes. Let us get on with the job of providing them, and get on with it quickly. Even in a place such as the Isle of Wight there are over 3,000 people on the waiting lists. Last Saturday I met a young couple. They have been married for four years. Both of them have night jobs. They return from work in the mornings and get into the same bed that the mother of the husband has just vacated. She is aged 66. They have to do that because there is nowhere else for them to go. Before local government reform they were told that they were top of the council's waiting list. But now that there is a bigger authority they have been told that they have not got a hope in hell of getting better accommodation unless they have a family. This young couple are sensible, and they have not had a family. They will wait until they have decent accommodation.
The other day I met a young man who had come out of the RAF. He has to commute to Winchester. He earns £45 a week. He had £1,500 saved and lie was trying to buy a house for £8,000. He could not get a mortgage. He has had to apply for a council house. Meanwhile, his wife is sleeping in the front room of the house of his inlaws, aged 80 and 81, and an elderly aunt. They are living in very inadequate accommodation. His wife is having treatment from her doctor. What fun can it be for this man to go home after his work to that sort of situation?
Many of these people are having nervous breakdowns. We all know about these cases. We cannot be jocular about the situation. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and I welcome anything which will enable councils to provide more low-cost housing, because we must do something now.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Unlike the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), I think that this is a really excellent Bill. However, I shall confine my remarks to two serious defects which I hope will be eliminated before the Bill becomes an Act so that it becomes an even better measure.
In the Labour Party's election manifesto, published a couple of months ago, two new housing pledges were introduced. The first was that controlled houses lacking basic amenities should remain in control. It was scandalous that under the Conservative Housing Finance Act these houses should have been withdrawn from control. Indeed, since 10th October 28,000 landlords have issued rent increase notices for this class of house. I am very glad that this, fortunately, will no longer occur and that these houses will remain, as they should, in rent control.
There was a second pledge, however, in our manifesto. That was that the Government would ensure restriction of rent increases for all other tenants—who, of course, are the overwhelming majority of private landlords' tenants. This will not take place unless we amend the Bill. Indeed, for private tenants the situation will be pretty much what was under the vicious Conservative Housing Finance Act. There is only one concession: that rent increases, instead of taking place immediately, will be phased over three years. Some of the rent increases were phased over three years even in the Tory Housing Finance Act.
Thousands of landlords of this class have recently issued rent increase notices to their tenants. I know of cases in which rent assessment committees have agreed to these increases, and sometimes to very big increases of up to £400 a year. If my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt he will give the House some evidence on that point.
What is happening is in complete conflict with the Government's declaration of intent regarding their policy of countering inflation. Their counter-inflation policy surely means that rent increases should not occur, and certainly not on this scale. I was very dissatisfied with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this matter when he did not concede what I hoped he would. I am appealing to him and the Minister for Housing and Construction to have another look at this matter before the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend did not even go as far as the Minister for Housing and Construction went on 13th November when, in reply


to a Question from me on this point he said
We are still considerinig whether some form of restraint on individual cases might be practicable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 388.]
I want to make it clear that I am not satisfied with dealing merely with individual cases, but at least that is better than not dealing with any cases at all.
No doubt the Conservative Opposition will cite hardship cases concerning little landlords. The Liberal spokesman did that, although it is usually Conservative Members who take that line. We have all had letters on this subject, but I suspect that behind the skirts of the little landlord hide the big property boys, who will make millions of pounds out of rent increases.
I appreciate the fact that some little landlords do not make a fortune out of their houses and that some suffer hardship. But what about the far greater number of tenants who suffer hardship? The establishment and big business support the big property owners. It is time that we Labour Members stood up for the tenants, who seem to have very little on their side. Indeed, we can cite pathetic cases of private tenants. In some cases, they are having to leave their homes because they cannot afford the new rents which are being imposed by the landlords.
Another argument which we shall no doubt encounter this evening and in Committee—some of us hope to serve on the Committee, and I am staking my claim—is that landlords are hit by inflation. My right hon. Friend referred to the rate of inflation in this country. There is a difference between a landlord using the excuse of inflation and a manufacturer using the excuse of inflation. It is true that a manufacturer, at a time of inflation, must pay more for his materials, machinery, wages and so on. I hasten to point out to my hon. Friends that I have not joined the ranks of the employers. However, there is a distinction between the employer and the landlord. The landlord does not have to face these increases except in one respect—repairs. I shall come to that matter shortly. His property has not risen in cost. Some of these properties were built a hundred years ago for £70 or £80, and

the tenants have been paying rent ever since. His costs have not been increased.

Mr. Michael Latham: Come off it.

Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman says "Come off it", but it is perfectly true that the original cost of the house has not increased. The costs for many of the people who inherited these houses perhaps a generation ago have not been affected by inflation, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say "Come off it" again.

Mr. Michael Latham: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the fact that landlords are not getting any increase in rent, because of the rent controls which have existed for the last 50 years, is the direct cause of slums and decay in housing in this country? That is what the discussion is all about.

Mr. Allaun: That does not affect the point I am making, that the costs of the landlord are not affected by inflation, with the exception of repairs. On repairs, there is a case, although, believe me, many landlords do not do any repairs at all.
There is a solution in the Bill regarding controlled tenants. It is a solution for which some of us have pressed for many years—that where the landlord does repairs he should be allowed to charge 12½ per cent. of the cost of the repairs, which would mean that in eight years he would have recovered all he had spent, although I would have thought that repairs are part of the reason for paying the rent.
If such a system can be introduced for controlled tenants, as it is in this Bill and as it is for improvements, then why can it not be introduced for all the other tenants, particularly if the landlords are made to produce their receipts for repairs expenditure? Incidentally, they are required by rent assessment panels to produce their receipts, although they are not so required by rent officers. That is a minor point, but it needs clearing up. I cannot see why there is not a basis here for dealing with repairs.
It will also be argued that some landlords are losing on their properties. If they are, let them sell them to the local authorities who can rent them to people on their housing waiting lists. When cotton shares fell in the 1920s the Government did not rush to those who had


made a bad investment and make up their income. Why therefore should a Government rush to the assistance of landlords, particularly when they have neglected repairs over the past generation?
I want to deal in two minutes with another point, regarding subsidies for local authorities. The city treasurer of Salford, Mr. William Shaw, a very authoritative and much-respected city treasurer, has worked out that our council will be £500,000 a year worse off under the subsidies proposed in the Bill. This afternoon I spoke to the leader of another big city council who told me that, as things are, that council will have to raise its rents by 50p a week next April and by a further 75p a week in the following April.
I admit, and welcome, the fact that a further subsidy has been introduced in the Bill which will apply for 1975–76. But I very much doubt whether it will cover the deficit to which I have referred. Moreover, local authorities do not know how this proposal will work out. Earlier this afternoon I attended a meeting of leaders of local authorities and they asked that as soon as possible my hon. Friend the Minister, or his civil servants, should explain the operation of this extra subsidy.
The city treasurer of Salford points out—I am sure that this applies to other cities; I am not making a particular case—that the 66 per cent. or 33 per cent. of grant towards the increased interest burden will amount to less than the 75 per cent. grant that applied previously. He also points out that there is no subsidy in the Bill towards the increased cost of repairs and management, which is particularly important where there are blocks of local authority flats.
I therefore conclude by pleading with my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to concede on these two issues, because that would go a long way to relieving hardship which would otherwise be imposed on private and council tenants. If such relief were attained the Bill would become one of the great housing measures of this century.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: May I first of all, even in his absence, congratu-

late my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) on his return to the House and upon taking over responsibility for housing in the Shadow Cabinet. I am delighted that we in the Opposition consider that housing is of such importance that it should have a separate portfolio in the Shadow Cabinet, as a separate responsibility. This is better than housing being combined within another Department. Perhaps the Minister of Housing himself might believe that what I suggest is not such a bad idea.

Mr. Julius Silverman: If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, why did the administration of which he was a member introduce the Department of the Environment which embraced as part of it the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that it is possible to have a single Department in which there is more than one Cabinet Minister. There are many illustrations of that—in this Government as there were in the Government of which I was a member.
Turning to the Bill, I believe that, overall, it will increase the housing problem in this country rather than ease it. The Bill sets out to ensure that in the long run local authorities can maintain rents at a level well below the market rents for council properties. I cannot believe that is in the interests of tenants of private rented property, or in the interests of tenants in council property, and it is certainly not in the interests of the nation as a whole.
To sweep away a fair system of fair rents that went right across the board for everybody must be a massively retrograde step. The Bill sets out to ensure that we create a special new area of privilege, providing a section of society which has a special advantage over its fellow men. This is now to be the long-term position of the council tenant. It is hardly a step towards national unity, as was implied by the Secretary of State.
I wish to give an illustration of what I mean as it affects my constituents. I held a surgery last Saturday, and probably many other hon. Members did, too. At that surgery I encountered two separate cases, involving people from


different parts of my constituency. In each case there were complaints that people were selling their own house to move into a council property. I cannot believe that is the intention of the Bill, nor can it be of any benefit at all towards dealing with the type of housing problem facing us at present.
I now put to the Minister a direct question arising out of the Secretary of State's speech. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in their interim proposals the Government gave an undertaking to the local authorities that there would be a major reform of housing finance. I gather from the Secretary of State that he is about to set up a committee to fulfil that promise. Will the Minister tell us when he winds up how he envisages the structure of that committee's report fitting in with the Bill?
It must be remembered that the Bill is not to cover only a limited period. Indeed, on certain aspects dealing with the counter-inflation restrictions, the local authority associations have urged that it should be limited. But it is not. What worries me, therefore, is that we shall have the Bill on the statute book, a committee will sit for, perhaps, a year or 18 months, and then the exigencies of parliamentary time will ensure that whatever he the outcome, that major review of housing finance will be left hanging around for many years thereafter. Those who may serve on that committee, and certainly those who may wish to give evidence to it, have a right to know at this stage where the Government see the outcome of its review fitting into their legislative programme on housing.
The Secretary of State claimed that when he took over his Department there had been no attempt to see the relationship of aid for housing in the private sector in conjunction with aid for housing in the public sector. He made some criticism on that account, and he suggested that there should be equal help to all types of housing, in whichever sector it might be. In my view, however, the Bill proceeds in precisely the opposite direction. It will ensure that the problems in the private sector are massively increased. Indeed, it will create a short-term disaster for the private housebuilding industry.
Let us make a comparison between the average local authority rents and average payments on new mortgages. For this purpose, I take some figures provided by the Housebuilders' Federation. Annual net payments on average new mortgages in the United Kingdom were about £208 in 1968, and the average annual weekly rebated rents on local authority dwellings in England and Wales were about £99 in 1968.
Let us now look at the increase year by year from 1968 to 1973. The annual net payments on average new mortgages rose as follows: £208 in 1968, £232 in 1969, £253 in 1970, £296 in 1971, £360 in 1972, and £480 in 1973. On the other hand, in that same period the average annual total of weekly rebated rents for local authority dwellings in England and Wales rose as follows: £99 in 1968, £107 in 1969, £120 in 1970, £130 in 1971, £150 in 1972, and £167 in 1973.
I know that those are averages, but to make any sensible comparison one has to use averages. Moreover, one can see more easily from those figures than from any other example I could give the way that life is becoming more and more difficult for somebody who wants to own his own home and wishes to take out a mortgage to do so. Here again, therefore, we see that aid is not being directed towards those people—80 per cent. of the population—who prefer to own their home if they can possibly have the chance. It is being given to assist public sector housing as a whole.
There will be a direct effect on the number of new homes built and available in the private sector. According to the Department of the Environment's own figures for July to September, 1974, right up to date, housing starts in the private sector are 55 per cent. lower and completions 33 per cent. lower than in the same period in 1973. I do not necessarily blame the Government for the completion rate, although one would certainly have hoped that they would keep it up. The rate of starts on the other hand, is absolutely their responsibility. They cannot duck this responsibility as they so frequently try to blame the adverse housing situation on the last Conservative Government.
Housing starts in the private sector, as I say, were 55 per cent. down. Indeed,


I believe that there is no chance of private housing starts being up to the level of 110,000 by the end of this year. If that is the outcome, of course, they will be 50,000 fewer than in any of the worst years in the last 10 years.
The consequence will be increasing financial liquidations among builders. There will be a lack of employment and growing unemployment among people in the building trade. There will be a falling demand for building materials and the inevitable consequences in the associated industries. Moreover, the pool of housing available to the nation will be that much smaller.
All that is to be contrasted with the Government's approach stated to the House and to the nation, that they would do everything to ensure that there was an increase, not a decrease, in the pool of housing available for everyone.
My major criticism of the Bill is that the Government are returning to subsidising "buildings" rather than subsidising "people in need" with the object of meeting each person's individual housing requirement. It does not make sense thoughtlessly to subsidise bricks and mortar. It makes far greater sense to subsidise those who are in need so that they may be put into whatever bricks and mortar are available to meet their housing need. That is my principal criticism of the Government's whole approach, and it is a fair criticism to make, since they are entirely misunderstanding the nation's true requirements in trying to tackle the housing problem.

Mr. John Ovenden: Will the lion. Gentleman carry that argument a little further and oppose the present system of tax relief on mortgage interest, which gives relief based upon the price of the house and is in no way related to the means of the buyer?

Mr. Emery: It must be directly related to the means of the buyer because it is only according to the income and means of the buyer that the amount of relief can be given. However, I shall meet the hon. Gentleman's point directly. No matter whether in the public or the private sector, I believe that the aid should be related to need. I regard that as absolute, and I am not willing to back down, whether it has or has not been done

before. I believe that to be the right way to handle the £700 million which will be going into housing subsidies under the Bill. There are about 5 million council properties in the public sector, which means that in England and Wales the individual figure will be some £140 for each property now in existence. That is a pretty high level of help, irrespective of how it will be used.
I come now to another question for the Minister. The Association of District Councils is somewhat concerned about the restrictions being placed on the level of increase which its constituent authorities may charge on rents, that is, that they must be related to and should not exceed the pooled historic cost of the totality of their housing. The association has suggested to me that a local authority might well decide that it was reasonable to limit rents to pooled historic cost in certain circumstances.
However, if this had the effect of keeping rents at a very low level compared with those of neighbouring authorities or with market rents, it could be reasonable for local authorities to fix rents at a higher level"—
than pooled historic cost. The association says that freedom should therefore be restored to authorities to allow them to have the power to repay from the housing revenue account rate fund contributions which had been made to the housing revenue account in former years. If the Minister in reply will comment on that aspect, the association will be glad.
The increases in house prices and mortgage rates over the past years have led to a substantial widening of the gap between the average net costs of servicing a new mortgage and the average weekly rebates on the rents of local authority houses. As a result, families which wanted to buy their own homes have almost certainly decided instead to rely on local housing programmes and to stay in local authority housing because of the much lower costs involved. The truth has been concealed in our subsidy system, progressively so with the increase in inflation.
Let us take the case of a man on a lower income renting an average new house costing, say, £10,000, which is not unusual for a council house at the moment. Initially, the rent is at about £6 a week. To make it possible, subsidy averaging over £20 a week from the rates and taxes


is paid for that individual. The gross total cost is, therefore, between £1,300 and £1,400 per annum.
If that man buys a similar house, the gross annual cost to him is just over £1,180 compared with the £1,300 to £1,400 a year for the rented home. In other words, in terms of gross costs, it is much better for him to be buying his own home. But that is denied to him because he could not claim, in buying that house, the subsidy of approximately £20 a week which he would be getting in council property.
Indeed, he has to find, first, the initial deposit, substantial or otherwise, if he wants to buy, and he must also pay a weekly gross repayment, depending on certain variable factors, of about £18 a week. The option mortgage scheme subsidy and the tax relief available to him, totalling about £6, reduce the repayment, but the repayment is still more than treble the rent which he is called upon to pay if he lives in council property.
How dare the Secretary of State say that he believes there should be an equality of help to both the private sector and the public sector, when this Bill sets out to do the opposite? It is socially divisive. I believe that we shall see an increase in the overall housing problem and a decrease in the total number of homes built over the next few years because of the action set out in the Bill. The Bill is introduced, I am sure, with good intent—I am not criticising the intent behind it—but I believe that the analysis of the situation by Ministers is so shallow that it will make the situation worse rather than better.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) mentioned people who want to be owner-occupiers or potential owner-occupiers but have gone on the council waiting lists. That is happening in Birmingham, which has a council house waiting list of about 30,000 families. New applicants are joining it at the rate of more than 200 a week. There is no doubt that a substantial number of them are young couples who have not the slightest possibility of getting a mortgage. Privately-owned houses have been priced out of the market to such people and they are going on the council lists, not because

it is cheaper to do so but because it is the only thing they can do. That is a point which must be borne in mind.
The City of Birmingham is being very active in this situation. The local authority is buying up private houses from builders who cannot sell them otherwise and is disposing of them at 100 per cent. mortgages to those who can afford such mortgages or is using them for council waiting list purposes. Surely that is to be commended. If it is correct, as it is, that people are going on to the council lists who might have tried for a mortgage in other circumstances then it is simply because it is the only thing they can do at present. But with a waiting list of 30,000, many of them will have to wait two, perhaps three, years before they can qualify for a council house.

Mr. Emery: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, with the whole contention of my argument that if these people could afford it and were given the same kind of help as they get by moving into council property, it would be in their interest, would decrease the Birmingham housing waiting list, and would be in the nation's interest to give them that help and ensure that they could buy their own homes rather than go into council property?

Mr. Silverman: I do not agree. In the first place, the average mortgagor is receiving in relief more than the average council tenant. That is a fact. That disposes of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) believes that the housing problems can be solved by an extension of owner-occupation, as does the hon. Member for Honiton. I am certainly not against an evtension of owner-occupation, but it is fatuous and impracticable to suggest that the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of our people who cannot possibly hope for a mortgage, the people who are in real need, can be dealt with by any other method than by a massive extension of council building and council housing.

Mr. Marcus Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only solution to this terrible crisis in housing is to extend council house building and that the private building industry has no part to play?

Mr. Silverman: The private building industry is, for the most part, building for the councils at the moment. The direct labour sector is very small. I am certainly not against any method of extending owner-occupation and building houses for private ownership. What I am saying is that for the people in real housing need, who are the nub of the problem, the only solution is a massive extension of council building. For that reason I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private sector should now be concentrating, as I believe it is at long last, on the establishment of low-cost housing, such as timber-framed housing? When it can bring the price range of such property down to £6,000£7,000, it will have a rôle to play but until that happens we must look to the councils.

Mr. Silverman: That is a technical building problem. I am not against that idea, if it can solve the problem, but there are all sorts of difficulties with prefabrication. I do not know of any prefrabricated system which is significantly cheaper than the conventional system of housing building. In the past, prefabricated and system-built methods have been used not so much for price reasons as because site labour was in short supply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a recent statement that he is prepared to consider any method, including prefabricated systems, which will help to solve the acute housing shortage, and I, too, am prepared to consider any method.
Some of the subsidies provided in the Bill are generous, but not all of them are. I want to voice the opinions of some of the local authorities on the matter, and to ask a few questions. Is the special element simply a substitute for the high-cost subsidy—that is, an increased subsidy for high cost which will embrace more than the subsidy proposed in the original Bill, which I understand provided relief and assistance only for London?

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The answer is "Yes" in relation to the coming financial year. Thereafter, the original system comes into operation.

Mr. Silverman: That means that in substance the special element is a special subsidy for the year 1975–76, and that for that year it will replace and increase the high-cost subsidy.
There is also the question of existing loan charges, where there is provision for a 33 per cent. increase in the rate of interest. This will be of some assistance if interest rates increase, which may or may not happen. There are various factors at work. What local authorities are much more interested in is some provision for inflation in the cost of repairs and management, which they are very worried about. There is no provision for any contribution to that inflation. The local authorities have to meet the whole of any increase resulting from inflation.
I turn to the rent rebates system. There is a good deal to be said for the overwhelming part of the rebate being paid by the Exchequer, because it is a form of relief, like supplementary benefit or family income supplement. There is a powerful case for at least 90 per cent., not 75 per cent., being paid by the State. There is no justification for saying that the cost of administration should be borne entirely by the local authority.
A number of other matters still have to be cleared up. We do not know what the high-cost element or the special element will be. We do not know what will be the special increase in the basic subsidy which can be provided by the Minister under Schedule 1.
The local authorities still wish to know about quite a number of matters concerning administration. They will have to prepare their accounts and make their other preparations well before 1st April. Several matters may still be questions for negotiation with the local authorities. They want to know what the Minister has in mind, because part of the Bill is more or less a framework within which the details have to be filled in by orders or ministerial action. I hope that information will be available soon.
I personally welcome the 66 per cent. relief on new loan charges, which will be of great assistance. My right hon. Friend is right to concentrate his assistance upon new building. Without the great assistance being given to local authorities, they will find it practically impossible to build at all.
With some reservations, I think that on the whole the Bill is very good. I welcome it, and the passing of the Housing Finance Act, which, apart from its effect on rent, was a gross affront to local democracy. It will pass unlamented, except by some Conservative hardliners, and I notice that even they in their amendment do not propose the retention of the Act, which is now a passage in history. I hope that this Bill will be carried decisively.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) has great experience of housing matters, and has served on Standing Committees considering housing Bills. The hon. Gentleman raised some important technical points, and because the Minister will no doubt reply to them tonight, or in Committee, I do not wish to comment on them. I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman when he dealt with the more theoretical than practical questions, and I hope that those points of disagreement will come out in my speech.
The Bill represents a further stage in the public sector housing policy pursued by successive Governments since 1919. That policy can be summed up in three ways. First, there is the view taken by every Housing Minister since Arthur Greenwood in 1930, and especially the late Mr. Richard Crossman in the 1965 White Paper on Housing, which is that it is possible to meet the demand for rented housing by building more council houses, but that that policy will continue only until all the slums are cleared and the demand met. Once that is done, it is said both in the 1965 White Paper and elsewhere, council house building can come to an end.
The second premise is that the reason why that demand has not been met so far is a shortage of financial or possibly industrial resources. It is said that if more money is provided, and the building industry is energised, the problem will be solved.
The third premise is that the price of privately-rented accommodation must be held down to avoid exploitation of the tenant. But it is said that that is to be only a temporary solution, as the

public sector alternative will soon take over from private landlords.
These are the three premises on which housing policy has been based, at least since before Greenwood. I have no hesitation in saying that each premise is incorrect. History and experience have shown that to be so and the Bill will only serve to make the housing problem worse, not better.
The Bill seeks to spend several hundred million pounds on council housing in 1975–76. That figure surely should make us pause. Parliament has been voting housing subsidies since Addison's Act in 1919. These sums must now be running into hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds. Yet, so far from achieving the wish of Arthur Greenwood or his son, now Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, or the late Richard Crossman or any other Housing Minister that the slums should be cleared and the need for council housing vitiated, the truth is that the situation has steadily worsened.
In 1971 an inquiry was set up into the nation's housing stock. It reported to the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). A similar inquiry was established in 1967 which reported to Mr. Greenwood. The 1971 inquiry found that there were 1·2 million dwellings unfit. That was 7 per cent. of the housing stock. Most of them needed immediate demolition. It also found that 2·9 million dwellings, or 15 per cent. of the total stock lacked one of the four basic amenities—an indoor lavatory, a fixed bath, a wash basin or running hot and cold water. This meant that one in five of our fellow countrymen were living in conditions ranging from bad to impossible. The survey covered only England and Wales and the situation in Scotland, as we know, is far worse.
Perhaps most depressing of all is that the 1967 survey showed that 72,000 council houses were already unfit and needed demolition. I do not think that the 1971 survey dealt with this aspect. Yet this dire state of affairs still existed in spite of colossal expenditure and effort on council housing. In 1951 there were 2·5 million council houses in Great Britain —18 per cent. of the stock. In December 1973 the figures were 6 million and 31 per cent.—one of the largest proportions


of public housing in Europe. Vast estates circle our great cities of London, Birmingham, Leicester, Liverpool and Salford. Tower blocks thrust into the skies. Half the architectural profession and innumerable planners are employed by local government. Yet the waiting lists grow longer and those already in council houses grumble that their properties are inadequately repaired. The truth is surely that throwing money at the problem as this Bill seeks to do deals only with symptoms and not causes. Our whole national housing policy has just grown like Topsy and has done so in a disastrous way.
In 1915 Asquith's Government first legislated to hold down rents for private property. This was a temporary measure to stop profiteering during the First World War. That temporary measure is still with us and the Government want to make it more extensive in the Bill. In 1919 Addison's Act first provided finance for publicly-rented housing—again as a temporary measure and to house soldiers coming back from the war. It is on the record that the House considered then that the measure would be in the tradition of the nineteenth century public health Acts, that is to say to provide competition for private builders building speculatively to let. It would keep up private standards which would have to be raised to meet municipal competition. Both of those rationales were erroneous and impossible. Once the State had taken to itself the power to fix the price of the private product and had provided a subsidised alternative it destroyed the free market.
This is where a second set of very important statistics comes in. In April 1951 there were 6·2 million privately-rented dwellings, constituting 45 per cent. of the total stock. In December 1973 there were 2·2 million, or 14 per cent. Municipal competition has destroyed the private market but it has not been and never will be able to make up the difference. That is because of what I can only call Gresham's law on housing—that bad houses will drive out good.
If restraint is put on the market supply of one type of construction—privately-rented housing—it is absolutely impossible to plug the gap by providing a dif-

ferent type of subsidised housing. As fast as subsidy is given the ill effects of the control require another control and thus another subsidy. That is why local councillors are always complaining to hon. Members that they need more powers to solve the housing problem. When they get them they discover that the powers are inadequate and that they never will be adequate.
As a related factor, the Bill continues the confusion of policy between "need" and "demand". Strangely enough, the late lamented National Plan was quite right about this in 1965 when it said, on page 171, that
it is almost impossible to quantify the need for housing".
That is still true. But actual "need" for subsidised housing—that is to say, for those people who are unable to pay the market price for their accommodation —which is only another way of saying that they are not paid a living wage—is a fixed and limited datum. It is possible to examine it scientifically and make appropriate provisions. But potential demand—which is continually confused with need—for subsidised accommodation is limitless. Local authority waiting lists will never get any shorter since they represent potential demand. Both the price of houses and the supply are limited and the inevitable consequence is a shortage of accommodation and a rationing by queue.
The truth is that rent control on the one hand and subsidised municipal building on the other are not a cure for housing, as my earlier statistics proved. They are actually the cause of it because they create shortages. That is why the Bill, which intensifies both, is so monumentally irrelevant and will merely spend more public money without dealing with the roots of the problem.
Nevertheless, if we must proceed further down the subsidy roads—I accept that the Labour side believes that that is how to deal with the problem—it becomes increasingly necessary to reach some degree of all-party consensus. If not, we shall go on wasting time in Parliament after Parliament, repealing each other's Acts.
Although I believe that rent control is hopeless and damaging, I know that the Labour side believes in it. No attempts


by Conservatives to decontrol private properties will revive the private market. Landlords will always sell with vacant possession, because they fear that a future Labour Government will freeze rents. For exactly the opposite reason the Left-wing policies on land and betterment have failed because landowners will wait until the Conservatives return in the hope of a new situation.
Such indecision in these vital matters is no longer tolerable. It is high time we had a Select Committee aimed at reaching some degree of all-party agreement on housing and land. With the catastrophic decline in the privately-rented sector there is now the greatest possible danger of the nation polarising into owner-occupiers on the one hand and council tenants on the other. At the present rate of decline there will be no new privately-rented accommodation in 1996. The trouble is that the present rate is increasing.
Since the State can never catch up with that decline, students, young marrieds and single people will have no hope of finding a home. There are therefore two ways in which, I suggest, we could halt the tide of decay. Both of them would retain controls and security of tenure, so as to meet the concern of the Labour Party. I hope that the Government will consider them.
First, the fair rents systems for privately-rented housing could be scrapped and replaced by a new "indexed rents" basis. Pending the abolition of the rent officer-rent assessment committee system, which settles fair rents, landlords would submit to the rent officer a statement of the economic cost of maintaining the building in a satisfactory state or, if necessary, putting it into a satisfactory condition. If no agreement could be reached on these costs the local authorties' quantity surveyors would be empowered to make a binding determination. Once this had been established a rent would be fixed reflecting the economic cost, rebates being available to the tenant as appropriate. That would be subject to annual permitted increases of rents on the basis of an index, published by the Department of the Environment, that would reflect increases in building and maintenance costs. It would include an allowance for a pre-tax return of an agreed percentage to the landlord above the current rate of inflation. The increases

would be permitted only if the maintenance had been carried out.
My second suggestion is that the existing security of tenure would be maintained. However, if a developer were prepared to provide new accommodation to let at reasonable rents, whether for students, young marrieds or single people, a tax depreciation allowance would be available and he would be allowed to raise his loan capital from public sources at specially cheap rates of interest, as has happened in West Germany. Such a deal might be done with local government as part of an office development or shop development under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 if the developer agreed to provide some cheap rented accommodation.
Alternatively, it might be done speculatively. The developer would convey the freehold of the site to the local authority and receive a head lease for 99 years. That system would be conditional on an agreed level of rents and probably on the basis of so much per square foot. It would give some financial incentive to the developer, it would ease the burdens on local authorities, and it would help a section of the population which often cannot afford to buy and which has no hope, for years, of getting a council house.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) will be leading his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Lobby tonight. I believe that this is a gravely mistaken measure. Far too often have we passed this sort of Bill. It is time to recognise that there is no future for the badly housed in taking this sort of course.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I trust that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) will excuse me if I do not take up his argument in detail. I have a very serious constituency situation that I want to impress upon the Government Front Bench. I should be interested to learn whether in the hon. Gentleman's general condemnation of attributing public funds towards housing he would wish to exclude owner-occupiers from either present tax relief or the rather extraordinary proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Keith Stainton: The election is over.

Mr. Latham: Yes, the election is over. I understood that the right hon. Lady's pledge was meant, and was something to which the Opposition were committed if they won the election. I should be interested to know whether the hon. Member for Melton feels that it is sufficient to advance the philosophy that he has put before the House and to dismiss the period between the Rent Act 1957 and 1965, when Rachmanism was halted, by saying that the system did not work because landlords feared that there might be a future Labour Government. I would have thought that some of his philosophy had been given practical application during those eight years, to the considerable detriment and hardship of many tenants throughout the country, and especially in Paddington.
A considerable part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) were devoted to extolling the virtues of home ownership. As I understand it, the Bill deals with two aspects of rents. To extol the virtues of some ownership in the present situation is rather like saying that everyone should have a new car and that public transport should be abolished. The conflict between home ownership and continued local authority building is spurious against the background of the total collapse of both housing programmes over the past three and a half years. I do not think that anyone has done other than to assert that in the present situation there is conflict or competition between building to rent or building to sell. The point has already been made that those without homes are concerned because the only option that they can see open to them is some prospect and hope of a home that they can rent.
As a dedicated opponent of the Housing Finance Act I could not do other than welcome this repealing measure. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, I am conscious that there must be more comprehensive legislation somewhat later. I accept that what he has produced is to a large extent a holding operation. I do not wish to appear to be in any way ungrateful to him for what he has introduced. The freeze which obtained under the counter-inflation order was welcome, and the prospect of continuing the present freeze for the time being is also welcome.
I acknowledge that in housing matters Paddington is not typical of all areas, but it is not unique. The remarks that I wish to make about the Bill as it concerns my constituency are not peculiar to Paddington but relate to other constituencies and conurbations other than those in the London area. In Paddington less than 10 per cent. of the available housing is owner-occupied property. As the hon. Member for Chelsea knows full well, there is a substantial holding by the local authority. There is a larger proportion of private furnished accommodation and an even larger proportion of private unfurnished accommodation—indeed, a far higher proportion than in most constituencies. There are housing associations such as the Paddington Church Housing Association in which the hon. Member for Chelsea has declared an interest. There are the Church Commissioners and private landlords ranging from the Freshwater type to the latter-day Rachmans, with others of a rather different ilk in between.
There is within the constituency virtually every type of rented accommodation apart from the agricultural tied cottage. Therefore, I am able to apply the test of how the Bill will affect my constituents who live in an extraordinarily wide range of rented accommodation. Without in any sense wishing to be carping to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I must tell them that the Bill will not do enough for my constituents. It will not be good enough for them.
I get the impression from the Bill and from various statements that the Department is likely to be more concerned about rents that are unreasonably low than rents which are unreasonably high, unless, as my right hon. Friend indicated, the local authority is making a profit. The Bill will repeal the Housing Finance Act and it will then throw my constituents to the mercy of Tory-controlled Westminster City Council. That is not likely to represent any great advance for my constituents.
I hope that in Committee the Bill will be strengthened, or that the Minister will give some indication of the criteria that will be adopted to decide when a local authority is fixing rents at too high a


level, so that they can be regarded as unreasonable.
In commenting about rents in the private sector I shall try briefly to give some of the evidence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred. As the Minister knows, I have for some time been sending him details of rent registrations in my constituency which are very much higher than those which existed previously. He will know that the 5 Courts Tenants Association is concerned with Westbourne, Hatherley, Burnham, Palace and Windsor Courts. The hon. Member for Chelsea, who used to represent a Paddington constituency, will know that the courts are in the southern part of Paddington. The 5 Courts tenants tell me that in Moscow Road rent increases have been demanded from £800 a year at present to £1,400, which would represent an increase of £600 a year.
The Minister may well say that these are simply applications for higher registrations, and that it does not follow that these rents will be subsequently registered. He has been saying this to me about a number of instances I have quoted over a period of weeks and has sought to allay fears I have expressed by placing some reliance on the rent officer and the rent assessment committee. The fact is that already in one case there has been a new registration, raising the rent from £600 to £900. This has happened, and it is too late to take action about it.
In another case, it is anticipated—I think, on the basis of recent performance, with reasonable certainty—that rents at present ranging between £800 and £900 in those 5 Courts will be raised to £1,200 a year. I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of his opening remarks, to bear in mind the size of increase I have described. Lest he should suppose that this is an exceptional case, I draw his attention to another group of properties—St. Mary's Mansions, comprising 120 moderate flats, not exceptionally modest but not exceptionally lavish, where, so far, 24 have been re-registered recently.
I have sent to the Minister for Housing and Construction a complete schedule showing what has been happening over the past 18 months. Let me take four examples which the Minister will know are not exaggerated but are fair and

typical. The first concerns Flat No. 9, where the previous rent registration was £525. The rent officer proposed £675 but the rent assessment committee has recently decided that the rent should be £960 a year—exclusive of rates and other charges. In another case, the rent was £700, the rent officer proposed £850 and now the rent assessment committee has decided on a figure of £1,160. In another case the rent was £700, the rent officer proposed £880, and the committee decided on £1,060. In another case the rent was £565, the officer determined £725, and the committee fixed £900.
From these examples and others which I have supplied, and others which I can supply, it is no exaggeration to say that the effect of phasing upon those tenants, faced with an average increase in the higher cases of £450 in their rent registration, will be that they have to face an increase of £150 plus £150 next year and £150 in the third year. My right hon. Friend referred to the problem of £1, £2 or £3 per week but in my constituency the figures are £3, £6 or £9. The problem is three times as great as he was prepared to recognise.
With the Housing Finance Act—we had a memorable time together on the Committee on that measure—it was sufficient, given the Tory Party's prejudice against council tenants, for the Tory Party to tighten the screw as fast as it could. It felt that there was a limit, and that that limit was £1 a week for council tenants and 50p a week per year thereafter. If that was bad enough as a ceiling for the Tories with the Housing Finance Act, why is it not good enough for a Labour Government to apply to private tenants?
We have rightly argued on many occasions that there are not two or three kinds of animals—owner-occupiers, private tenants and local authority tenants. They are basically the same people, with the same problems, entitled to the same consideration and help. If it was right to have that limit under the Tory Housing Finance Act, why does my right hon. Friend not agree to a ceiling for rent increases for private tenants?
I note that in the Bill he proposes a 40p floor. I am disappointed that he proposes no ceiling. If, none the less, he is unable to accept the argument for a ceiling in the rent increase, he might at


least consider whether some condition can be inserted in the Bill in Committee which would improve the position with rent assessment committees. My feeling is that while rent officers' proposals in my constituency have been somewhat high, rent assessment committees have been proposing even more extortionate increases. Could there not be some system of appeal introduced into the Bill? Could there not be some measure of control—some means of moderating what the rent assessment committee is doing?
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will recall, in writing to me on 23rd August, using a stock phrase that appears in many other letters, when he talked about the London Rent Assessment Panel. He said:
The Panel is quite independent of the Department in the way it carries out its statutory duties and is answerable only to the courts.
The fact is that it is only answerable to the courts on certain legal points. It is answerable to the Council on Tribunals but that has power to deal only in terms of the panel's doing something improper. The panel is not answerable to anyone in terms of general policy and the rent levels it applies.
There seems to be no regard for tenants when, as appears to be happening in this case, the rent assessment committee goes haywire in the determination of rents. If it is not possible to introduce this measure of control, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of introducing within the Bill a proposal for altering the composition of rent assessment committees? At present, there are two professionals against one lay member. Might there not be merit in suggesting a fourth lay member, namely, a representative of tenants' organisations, although obviously not a tenant of a group of properties that was under consideration?
This might redress the imbalance which seems to exist between the professional attitude and the tenants' interest when rent determinations are settled by rent assessment committees. If that is not possible, will my right hon. Friend take up at least one point from the speech of the hon. Member for Melton and insist that there be some disclosure of rent income and outgoings and capital outlay so that we might apply some different criteria?
One of the battles with the Church Commissioners going on within my constituency and elsewhere at present is that although the commissioners argue about the impoverished curate and the need to increase their income to finance his stipend, they will never publish the figures of original capital investment, their outgoings and incomings, so that the public and their tenants are unable to judge whether there is justice in the rents they may be demanding.
The commissioners have accepted, in many cases at my behest, phasing over five years. They have perhaps been more generous than the Minister is prepared to be at present. That does not alter the fact that at the end of the day those five increments will have been paid and rent levels will have been raised substantially without any economic justification by the commissioners as landlords.
May I place on record a suggestion I made to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction informally, on an earlier occasion? I understand that he has to argue in terms of the way in which the Rent Acts, rent officers and rent assessment committees are functioning throughout the country as a whole. I accept, I have no reason to challenge, the figure given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, to the effect that the average increase is around 7 per cent. Given that 7 per cent. it may be that the provisions of the Bill are perfectly adequate in many parts of the country. But certainly in the housing stress areas, the pressure of higher rents is far greater. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to amend the general provisions of the Bill, will he agree to look at the concept of declaring rent stress areas in which particular controls would apply and where new criteria may be insisted upon? If he is not prepared to amend the general principle, let him at least acknowledge that there are these special problems which I have quoted in detail. It might be that in making such a provision it would be right for my right hon. Friend to have such a power, subject to parliamentary approval. It might avoid the difficulty of amending a Bill designed to deal with the country as a whole when some of those provisions may not be as relevant as they would be in my constituency, and some others.
If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider the other suggestions I have made, may we have some better guidance on some means of determining what is the scarcity element which rent officers and rent assessment committees are calculating? In a recent case about which the Minister knows, because I sent him the correspondence, the rent assessment committee declined to express the scarcity element as a percentage. The tenants directly involved, and other tenants, are completely in the dark about what calculation the rent assessment committee has made.
I have outlined the problem and suggested a number of possible solutions. My constituents do not care whether my suggestions are adopted or better ones are forthcoming from the Government, but they hope and expect action to be taken and their special problems to be recognised.
As the Secretary of State for the Environment knows, there is considerable pressure from the West End of London upon Paddington. It affects the shopping facilities and amenities. There is considerable commercial encroachment on the constituency from the tourist trade. Small hotels go out of business so that large hotels may take over, as has happened in the Sussex Gardens case, in which the Minister has taken considerable interest and has done what he could to help, although his powers are limited. There is the problem of small hotels being formed out of existing residential accommodation, resulting in a loss of residential accommodation. There is the pressure of tourist demands for short-let accommodation in the constituency. It does not require much imagination to understand how all those pressures introduce factors which have effects on rents which may not apply in districts which are not subjected to such pressures.
I cannot ask for the introduction of a special Bill for Paddington, but I can ask for the introduction, in Committee, of discretionary powers in the Bill which will meet this set of problems. The increases are far too high, even with phasing. Also, the new rent levels will be far too high for ordinary people, or even for people above modest means, to continue to live in the district.
As the Secretary of State acknowledged in applying the freeze in council and

private rents, these increases are undeniably inflationary. They represent a substantial attack on the living standards of the tenants in these properties, and the higher rents are brought about by extraneous influences which have little to do with the rights of the tenant to a home or the right of the landlord to let it. A false relationship with the investment value of the property is produced, and, unless action is taken now, the consequence will be a change in the social character of the whole neighbourhood of Paddington and those districts closely associated with it.
I remind the House and the Government of the deal perpetrated by First National Finance Corporation two or three years ago, when 110 blocks of fiats, involving 9,000 tenancies, were purchased by that corporation from a number of smaller landlords for £52 million and sold a few months later for £76 million—a profit of £24 million against an expediture of only £300,000 on repairs, giving a net profit per tenancy of £2,333, produced simply by selling the homes over tenants' heads as one would sell sacks of potatoes in a vegetable market.
In spite of that, the Under-Secretary of State had the effrontery to write to me recently denying that there was a relationship between rents and investment value. There may not be a direct relationship, but it is clear that the profit which FNFC was able to make was possible only in the expectation of receiving much higher rents, and that was borne out in the event, because immediately following the transaction some of the properties in my constituency had an additional rent of £300 registered. It would not, therefore, take long for the new purchaser to get his money back and make a sufficient sum to cover the profit FNFC had made without contributing anything to solving the housing problem.
The scandal of homelessness is underlined by the number of empty properties in the London area. If the Minister cannot offer any hope for the tenants on whose behalf I have been speaking, will he be able to incorporate in the Bill a clause which will give hope to other homeless and hard-pressed people, so that 12,000 empty properties in Westminster, instead of standing empty, may be used to accommodate them? Will he also consider introducing in the Bill—although


I know that its scope is limited—means of preventing the further loss of residential accommodation for hotel purposes to which I referred?
I hope that the Minister, when he replies tonight or in Committee, will acknowledge that tenants in my constituency have a right to expect that at the end of three years of Labour government they will not be in the position in which they would have been had the Tory Party remained in power—which would be the effect of phasing for them because it would merely put off for two or three years the payment of rents which they could have expected to be extorted from them had the Tories remained in power. Many people will be unable to afford to stay in the district and pay higher rents unless the Government take action now.
I hope that the Minister will offer me some hope that I shall be able to give good news to tenants in Paddington.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Dean: As someone who has been heavily involved in the question of local authority housing I welcome the Bill in principle. There are, however, some weaknesses in it which will have to be carefully watched.
There is no question that if the nation is to be housed adequately the only authorities which can do it on the scale necessary are the local authorities. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that they are in favour of owner-occupation when owner-occuption has gone out of the window for most of the people without homes. A person must be in the £70 or £80 pay bracket, with perhaps a substanial nest egg in the bank, before he can even consider buying a modest semidetached house in a not highly-priced area.
The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) has said that there is not a great demand for houses in the public sector. I should like him to consider the numbers of people on the waiting lists in the major conurbations. As a rough yardstick, one can say that for every three council properties there is one person on the waiting list. In other words, in a large authority with 90,000 properties, one would not be far out if one said that, with slum clearance, and waiting lists, 30,000 people

or families are waiting to be accommodated.
As building figures have dipped in the past two or three years the waiting lists and the demand for council houses have increased enormously. I do not think that even now we know the true demand for council housing because, unfortunately, some authorities still operate a system in which conditions apply before a person can register for a council house. If authorities were not to impose conditions of registration there would be a greater demand for local authority housing. I realise that the measures will be reviewed after 12 months.
I do not feel that the 66 per cent. will provide an incentive to councils to undertake large new building programmes. They would not look kindly at having to levy rents of £7·50, which is the figure given to me by my local authority. The council works on historical costs, which means that the rents of course will be considerably less.
A local authority with a waiting list of 30,000 families should be thinking in terms of providing 3,000 units a year, so as to get rid of that waiting list within a decade. If local authorities have to find 34 per cent. it will not be attractive for them to go in for large building programmes. When there was an escalation in building costs some years ago, although it was not so large as the escalation over the past five or six years, rather than build new houses small local authorities started to opt out. The nation just cannot afford that.
It is not true that the private sector has a very great role to play. The private sector has been given all the opportunities and has been found wanting. In my constituency a new problem has arisen. The private sector utterly refused to take advantage of any improvement scheme brought forward. I hope that the authority will be able to take advantage of the improvement measures which are already on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) understated the case when he spoke of the need to collate the maintenance and general management expenses within an identifiable subsidy. No one has ever funded for the maintenance of council houses at a sufficiently high rate. That


is why some are in such a bad state of repair. If maintenance is to be borne solely on council house rents and rates that will be another deterrent to maintaining the houses in a reasonable state of repair.
The last building workers' settlement placed a further burden on a large authority with which I was associated of £750,000 a year. I shudder to think what will be the result of the present building workers' claim. If a substantial settlement is made early next year the effect on the maintenance costs for council houses will be tremendous.
While we are talking about the 66 per cent., I hope it is realised that most of the building programmes will be undertaken in the large conurbations. Those are still the highest-rated areas, and the inhabitants of the large conurbations pay rates which are 20 or 30 per cent. higher than those paid by people who live on the periphery. It is unfair that the people who live in conurbations, who have to live in squalor for which they are not responsible, should be asked to bear an ever-increasing percentage of the cost of clearance. I hope that the Minister will keep that situation under review.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested temporary homes. We are still trying to get rid of some of the tragedies introduced into the local authority building sector during the last 10 to 15 years. Expensive gimmicks were designed and introduced supposedly to help the housing situation, but we are now trying to get rid of them because they are anti-social. I am speaking of blocks of flats, some with deck access a quarter of a mile long, which have reproduced all the social problems we wanted to get rid of. I know of no one who is happy to accept the type of accommodation referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight as a temporary expedient. People who go into such accommodation and become municipal tenants immediately apply for a transfer. They want the best council housing, to which they are entitled.
A figure has been mentioned of 400,000 houses per year. Of those, 100,000 are of the type of property about which I am speaking. Any industrialised system costs more than 20 to 25 per cent. more than a conventional bricks and mortar house.
There is no better investment for the future than investment in local authority houses. We must forget about these gimmicks. They were designed by architects and planners, and sometimes accepted by councillors who were not themselves prepared to live in them. I want the best that we can reasonably provide for council tenants in cities.
I have sounded the alarm on one or two matters. As the Minister said, in 12 months' time there will be a review. I hope that we shall move away from the 66 per cent. The figure given by my local authority shows that on a house costing £9,000 it would be necessary to find £370 a year, which would mean the rent of £7·50 a week. That is not an incentive for local authorities to up their programmes to 3,000 or 4,000 units a year.
I welcome the principle of the Bill, and hope that the Minister will note the points I have raised.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: This has been an illuminating debate because of the different attitudes on housing that have been exposed from both sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) said that at least the Opposition had not returned to putting forward the Housing Finance Act. It seems to me, listening to the Opposition's contributions this afternoon, that that is precisely what they have done. The whole sense of the amendment is a return to the principles of the Housing Finance Act. Because of the attitude which has been displayed, the choice before us is much simpler than it would otherwise have been.
When we go into the Lobby the question we shall decide is whether at the end of the current rent freeze there should be a return to the provisions of the Housing Finance Act, or whether we should adopt the proposals laid down in the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill. It is difficult for any of us to make a detailed comparison of the proposals in the Housing Finance Act with those contained in the present Bill. The measures start from different premises and adopt a different approach to the problem of housing finance.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is returning to the idea of local


democracy in respect of housing and rents. It is essential for the future survival of local government that local representatives should have some say in this vital services, but it is equally necessary that the tenant should have access to somebody who is accountable to him. I am sure that no Labour Member, and, I presume, few people in local government, will shed any tears over the demise of the faceless men in the rent scrutiny boards, or over the departure of the housing commissioner for every waiting in the wings to enforce Whitehall's policy where local authorities could not be bludgeoned into so doing. I believe that the Bill not only marks a big step forward in housing finance but strikes a long overdue blow for local democracy.
In the present parliamentary Session we should judge every measure that comes before us in terms of the effect it will have on our economic problems. The Bill is highly relevant in that regard. It will end the inflationary yearly increases imposed by central Government on local authority tenants. It will stop the inevitable rise of local authority rents to a level beyond the means of the average tenant, with the consequent means-testing on a fantastic scale which such a rise would involve. Few measures can have played a greater rôle in stoking the fires of inflation or of making impossible the achievement of a voluntary pay restraint policy than the provisions of the Housing Finance Act. The present Bill now gives a chance to return to a logical system of housing finance and to a realistic approach to the problems of fixing rents.
The last two years have shown how right were Labour Members in their predictions of rent levels consequent upon the Housing Finance Act. I well recall Conservative statements in this House at the time refuting those accusations. Those two years have also shown how farcical is the concept of fair rents and how ludicrous it is to try to apply to the public sector the commercial principles which apply to the private sector. Those in the House who would seek to pretend that there can be a comparison between local authority housing and private sector housing will have to take on their shoulders the impossible task of determining the rent of 5 million council tenants by reference to a tiny,

dwindling private sector. That system has brought about the ludicrous situation in many towns that rents in many thousands of council homes have been determined by reference to two or three comparable houses in the private sector. We all know instances where such a process has taken place.
It has become clear in this debate that the main aim of the Conservative Housing Finance Act was to reduce the amount of Government aid to housing. However strenuously that was denied at the time it has become evident from almost every Conservative speech in this debate. The Housing Finance Act reduced the basic subsidy of £20 a house for each year of the first two years and from then on we were to have a £10 reduction per house. Even the seemingly attractive subsidies and rate fund contributions were to be totally dependent on rent incomes of local authorities. Those subsidies and rate fund contributions to housing would be made only if it proved impossible to squeeze high enough rents out of tenants. Wherever and whenever possible the task of financing new housebuilding and of assisting poorer tenants was to be placed on the shoulders of those council tenants just outside the range of rent rebates or who qualified for only small rent rebates.
We Labour Members believe that this problem is a responsibility of the community as a whole. The Bill guarantees that the contributions towards those activities will be made before rents are determined, and not after.
I am amazed to hear many Conservative Members still advocating that, where possible, council housing should be turned into a profit-making service. The Housing Finance Act not only envisaged that but, in many areas appeared to regard it as the norm. Subsidies were to be eliminated, and profits accruing to housing revenue account were to be used to assist local and central Government and also to subsidise landlords in the private sector. The amount of refund made to a local authority from the housing revenue surplus was to be reduced by the amount of money paid in that area towards private tenants.
I believe that we face a deep and worsening housing crisis, but not worsening for the reasons which have been given by some Conservative speakers, namely,


that we are spending too much money on solving the problem. The crisis is deepening because we as a nation are not prepared, and have not been prepared, to devote a sufficient proportion of gross national product to the housing sector.
We have been told by Conservative Members that if only we give the necessary boost to the private sector the problem can be solved. They ignore the facts of the present situation. The housing crisis has become worse in the last few years and housing lists have lengthened because of one main factor—namely, the inactivity of the Conservative Government which led to house prices being allowed to double. Millions of young people who only a few years ago were able to afford their own houses now cannot afford to buy. Many people have registered their names on council waiting lists because it has become impossible for them to buy their own houses. I would have more sympathy for the Conservative view of the situation if it were not expressed at the end of a period of Conservative Government during which mortgage rates rose from 8½ to 11 per cent., and at the end of whose period of office mortgage rates were on the brink of rising to 13 per cent.
The Bill provides a good basis for tackling the housing problem. It gives the necessary incentive to local authorities to increase and sustain the level of building. I appreciate the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) in regard to the costs accruing to local authorities, but I hope that in his reply the Minister will make clear how he envisages the new high-cost element of the subsidy assisting in these cases.
It was said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that the contribution towards new capital costs was not high enough. We ought to take account of one other weapon in the Government's armoury which, I hope sincerely, will come before this House shortly. It is the public ownership of building land, which will present enormous relief to local authorities and lift from their shoulders a very heavy burden in financing their future housing programmes. We must look at the 66 per cent. in that light. If there is a case for a higher figure—and there may be in

the interim, before public ownership of land becomes effective—I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it.
One effect of these proposals is to remove the uncertainties under the Housing Finance Act about future finance for new building. The threat was there in the Housing Finance Act that the system to assist with rising costs could be reassessed at any time with a view to reducing the subsidy paid to local authorities. It was also made clear in the Act that the contribution towards rising costs could be limited to a period of five years. That was no guarantee on which to expect local authorities to embark on increased building programmes. This Bill provides much longer-term and stronger guarantees of support for local authorities.
As for the provisions affecting the private sector, there was always a danger that we would underestimate the effect of the Housing Finance Act on the private sector. When we were involved in our arguments about its effect on council tenants we tended to forget that the effect on private tenants could be even worse. I welcome the clause in the Bill which will prevent the further decontrol of houses which are not up to modern standards of amenity. I also applaud my right hon. Friend's action earlier this year in deferring the passing of houses out of control. It was due to have taken place on 1st July. These two actions ensure that the landlords of substandard property will be prevented from cashing in on the present housing shortage.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) in asking the Minister to look again very closely at the phasing provisions contained in the Bill. I ask him to look especially at the effects on those tenants for whom the election of a Labour Government came just too late and whose houses were taken out of control on 1st January of this year. At the end of the rent freeze they face significant rises in three steps in both real terms and percentage terms. I ask my hon. Friend to pay attention to the problems of these people.
Although it is slightly outside the scope of the Bill, I hope that at some time in the future we can have another look at the process of determining rents in the private sector. No one seeks to deny


landlords the necessary funds to keep their houses in a decent state of repair, but we would resent and oppose the idea that landlords in some way should be allowed to profiteer out of the rise in property values.
There is much truth in what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said about the level of investment in housing by private landlords, with many private landlords owning property which they bought at very low cost in the distant past. It is quite unacceptable that the rents allowed for that type of property should be based upon today's inflated values. I know of no other form of investment where that type of approach is justified. We must also remember that many landlords who bought controlled housing, even in the immediate past, did so on the understanding that it was controlled property, and that the price that they paid for it reflected the controlled status of the rent. We must not be deluded into being too generous to private landlords. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider that aspect.
I should like my hon. Friend also to look at the present procedure for determining rents. Many Government supporters believe that this procedure is stacked far too strongly on the side of the landlord, who can afford the benefit of professional advice, and that it is stacked very strongly against the tenant. It becomes even more strongly stacked when we take account of the necessity for a tenant to put forward a fair rent of his own in rebuttal of the landlord's claim of a fair rent. It makes it quite impossible for the tenant to know precisely what action he should take in these circumstances. It makes it very likely that he will settle for the rent proposed by the landlord, in the knowledge that the rent officer can well establish a rent above that figure. We want to look at this system and to make sure that it is fair to both sides.
We have a clear choice before us about the methods by which we should finance housing in the public sector. I hope that that choice will be clear to every hon. Member. I say to the Minister that even those Government supporters who have criticised some of the details of the Bill still applaud the measure as a major step forward from the Housing Finance Act.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). I must tell him straight away that I thought that his descriptions of the Housing Finance Act and of the motives behind it were a complete travesty of the facts. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the Housing Finance Act producing profits, he makes it sound as though an unscrupulous group of people were out to make profits at the expense of council house tenants. It was intended, however, that the people making those profits would be the local council, and that the only way that profits would be made would be by the council charging a fair rent on the stock of housing that it happened to own. If at the end of the day there was a surplus, the way that the surplus should be used was clearly defined. It was to be used to help those in greater need than the people who had contributed to it. It was not a measure aimed at producing profits—a word which sends Government supporters straight through the roof. The profits, if there were any, would be the natural surplus which would arise from charging fair rents—a concept introduced by the late Richard Crossman—and the surplus was to be used for purposes of which the hon. Member for Gravesend could do nothing but approve.

Mr. Ovenden: The hon. Gentleman appears to have the facts slightly wrong. My understanding of the Housing Finance Act is that the surplus was to be paid to the Secretary of State and that any such sum
… shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
There were provisions later for a refund of part of that to the local authority, but there was no guarantee that the local authority would use that money for housing purposes or, indeed, that the Government would use it for such purposes. Looking at the record of the last Conservative Government, it is far more likely that they would have used it to make hand-outs to their wealthy friends.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman starts by misunderstanding the measure, and he goes on to attribute the worst of all possible motives to anyone in Government. I can understand that coming from the member of a party as cynical


as his own. But I ask him for once to think in a more realistic way about what he and his party are supposed to represent—that is, to each according to his need; from each according to his ability. That is an ideal to which I happen to subscribe and which I thought was supposed to be one of the moving forces behind the Labour Party. But the hon. Gentleman's attitude is very simple. He believes that anyone living in a low-cost house is entitled not to have to pay any more, and that it is a person's bad luck if he has not got a house. Blame the landlord, blame the local council, blame somebody.
There is no justice behind the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. His party's objective in the last Parliament and in the election was to cultivate the good wishes of a large number of council tenants in the hope that it would produce an electoral bonus.
Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the most accurate costing of an election programme that anyone has ever given. He said that between July and October public expenditure increased by £3,000 million. That was the increase in the borrowing requirement in those four months. That increase was made because of the Labour Party's election programme. That was the sum that the Government spent on trying to buy their way back to office. Now they find themselves in difficulty because they know that they attacked the Housing Finance Act which was a sound measure based, if anything, on a Socialist ideal. Therefore, they are now trying to get themselves off the hook.
The whole of this charade today revolves round the fact that instead of fair rents we are to have reasonable rents. Indeed, we are to have the charade even further dressed up. We are to restore authority to local councils. They are to have all kinds of authority provided they do not want to increase rents, provided they do not go against the counter-inflation policy and provided that they do not do a number of things of which central government disapprove. However, if they attempt to do anything of which central government does not approve, the Government, in Clause 2, reserve the right to stop them. The Government say that they are returning power to local authorities to fix reasonable rents

as long as the Minister for Housing and Construction approves of them. What freedom is that?
The Minister for Housing and Construction—I give him credit where credit is due—desperately cares about the housing situation and is motivated by a desire to put it right so far as it lies within his power to do so. His heart is in the right place, but all his instincts lead him to do things which damage the position of those about whom he cares most. Frankly, the Bill will do nothing for the people about whom the hon. Member for Gravesend spoke in his misguided but well meaning speech. The profit about which he was talking—

Mr. Ovenden: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Denis Skinner: Get a smile on your face. The hon. Gentleman is in opposition now.

Mr. Parkinson: I know that we are in opposition, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe that one has a duty to be responsible either in government or in opposition. If he learned that and told one or two of his brothers, the House would be a better place. The hon. Gentleman should start to grow up and try to shed at least half the chips off his shoulder. I think that the House would then enjoy listening to him. Indeed, once in a while he should stand up instead of sitting there shouting.
I want to speak about two aspects of the Bill and of the housing situation generally.

Mr. Skinner: I thought the hon. Gentleman might.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), in a first-class speech, talked about the Conservative Party's policy. Perhaps the Minister for Housing and Construction will listen and learn. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had listened before they would not have had such a ridiculous election programme.
The polls—although they make mistakes, they are small percentage mistakes, not big ones—show clearly that 75 per cent. of the public, given the chance, want to own their own homes. Shelter


agrees that the best way for a young person to approach his or her housing requirements is by trying to become a home owner. The policy put forward by the Conservative Party at the last election was geared to help in that situation. We said that we would help the first-time purchaser. We set out to hold mortgage interest rates at a reasonable level. These would have been a sensible measures. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand finance. I was an accountant in the City for 12 years.
From an economic point of view the matter is totally unarguable. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea gave the basic figures today. In round figures a council house costs £1,000 in Subsidy whereas a privately purchased house costs about £300 in subsidy. We could help three times as many people to buy their own homes. The Minister disagrees. I shall not waste time now. I shall take him outside later and show him on a piece of paper why I am correct in making that assertion. We said that it was cheaper and better for the community. Indeed, it is what the vast majority of people want. We set out to encourage people to own their own homes. Our policy—including the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill—was a step towards that end.
If the Minister will listen instead of groaning before I have had a chance to develop what I am saying, I shall explain why. I shall illustrate what I am saying by giving an example from Kernel Hempstead, the constituency in which I lived until recently. When houses in Hemel Hempstead were first offered for sale very few were interested in buying them, for the simple reason that the rents, as then fixed, made it too good a deal for anyone to want to buy them. Regardless of means people were living in new first-rate houses at very low rents. The Housing Finance Act started to move the rents towards fair rents for those who could afford them. For those who could not there was a very generous system of rebates which protected and improved the position of the poorer sections of the community.
When the Housing Finance Bill was introduced, and houses were again offered

for sale in the new town, many people wanted to buy their own homes. While they were on such a very good deal with rents which were well below what they could afford and what the properties could demand, there was no incentive to buy. However, the concept of fair rents put pressure on those who could afford fair rents and could therefore afford to start thinking in terms of buying, to contemplate the alternative. With very low rents there was no such pressure. The net result was that more people became interested in buying houses because they realised that they had been grossly over-subsidised and that it was most unfair on the community at large for them to continue to be heavily subsidised when they could afford to buy.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. The Housing Finance Bill set out to encourage people who could afford to buy houses to think in terms of buying and to take the pressure off community housing. It was of help to those who could not afford the current rents because the rebates were generous. It also encouraged those who could afford to buy to undertake the cost of financing their own homes.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) shakes his head. I have heard him make many misguided speeches about the railways. I hope that his knowledge of housing is slightly better than his knowledge of nationalised industry finance.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think and to say that if ownership is put into the hands of local authorities the tenants' problems disappear because, instead of evil, grabbing landlords, we have concerned local councillors desperate only to serve the interests of tenants. If I made that kind of speech in Boreham Wood which is a council house dominated area, the tenants would fall about laughing. The Boreham Wood tenants, or about 5,000 of them, have the misfortune of having one of the worst landlords in the country—the Greater London Council.
There are nearly 5,000 GLC houses in that area, and the GLC takes a strange


attitude to the tenants. Its basic attitude is simply, "You have no representation on our local authority because you are not allowed to elect councillors to the GLC. Therefore, you must deal with our local office, which will deal with you if it feels like it". Tenants have come to me in droves with their problems because they are totally unrepresented on the GLC. These tenants live 20 miles out of London and the GLC treats them in a way that would guarantee headlines in the News of the World, if private landlords were to take similar action. I am not exaggerating.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment loves to talk about Manchester. I invite him to take a trip up the A1 and address a meeting of 200 or 300 GLC tenants about the improvement that results from being a local authority tenant—notably a GLC tenant—rather than the tenant of a private landlord. If the hon. Gentleman were to do that he would receive a hot reception, because if someone does things in the name of the local council he can be more inhuman, less caring and infinitely harder than most private landlords would dare to be. The idea that we should create an even bigger empire for these municipal tycoons to manipulate, and that this would promote social justice is one which my constituents would find a sick joke indeed.
The plain fact of the matter is that the GLC, as an absentee municipal landlord, has about 100,000 houses outside its area. Many other local authorities have housing estates in areas or districts other than their own, and they treat their tenants in a most offhand and callous way. Boreham Wood is perhaps as good an argument against any extension of municipal ownership as I have come across. From my council tenants' point of view, the sale of council houses and the opportunity to get out of the hands of the uncaring local authority was an opportunity which hundreds of them wished to take.
A meeting was held to complain about the Housing Finance Bill. There are about 5,000 tenants with homes in the town, and 16 people turned up at the meeting. They were mainly local Labour Party activists. Another meeting was held in the same town about the sale of council houses. On this occasion, nearly 300 people turned up. There was no great resentment against the Hous-

ing Finance Bill. Any objection that there was was fostered by the ignorant and evilly motivated such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The basic fact is that the measure was—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member as having evil intentions and evil motives? The hon. Gentleman is being grossly unfair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is difficult to ascertain or substantiate any such intentions, therefore I do not think any hon. Member should be afraid of a criticism of that kind. One does not know what hon. Members are thinking at any given time.

Mr. Parkinson: That is one of the nicest things that anybody has said about the hon. Member for Bolsover for a long time. Far from being upset, he should have felt flattered.
I did not intend to make a long speech, and that is still my intention. All I say is—

Mr. Skinner: Take your hands out of your pockets.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating how kind I was to him in my earlier kindly description of him.
The Government have got themselves firmly on to a hook. They know that the vast majority of the public want to buy homes. They know that the Housing Finance Act was a fair and fundamentally reasonable measure. They know that the weakest in the community were protected, and more than protected. Their position was improved by that measure.

Mr. Skinner: Declare your interest.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not own any property that I rent to anyone. The Government know that that Act—[Interruption.]

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that can be done to stop the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is sprawled on the bench below the Gangway, from continually and ridiculously interrupting speakers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Attempts have been made for the past 150 years to do


exactly as the hon. Gentleman wishes. No one has ever succeeded yet.

Mr. Parkinson: I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for my parliamentary health, but I must tell him that the hon. Member for Bolsover does not bother me.
The Government misrepresented the Housing Finance Act, as they did so many other measures. That measure had objectives which any sensible Socialist should have been proud to endorse. It was introduced with the idea of helping those who needed help and ensuring that those who did not need it contributed to the welfare of those who did. The Government attacked those measures for electoral reasons, and now we see their answer.
The Bill will do nothing to help those who do not have homes. It will not restore any freedom to local authorities. The Bill merely gives the appearance of restoring freedom. The Minister will be firmly in control of any measures that are taken. The Bill passes over to ratepayers a potentially huge burden. The Government consistenly call for the control of rents while watching rates soar, and the Bill could contribute to further rate increases.
The Bill is a pallid measure produced by a Government with a bad conscience. They know that they are replacing a sound and well thought out measure that would have moved the nation's housing subsidies on to a sensible basis. The Bill will do none of those things, and I hope that tonight the House will vote against it with enthusiasm.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) to civilised morality, but I had grave doubts about his interpretation of it in the 20 minutes that followed his declaration of a new-found faith.
The hon. Gentleman repeatedly told the House—and I suppose he believes it—that the majority of people would dearly love to own their own houses. I do not suppose there is much evidence to indicate the contrary, but, having said that, one

has not said anything of any consequence, and it is a matter of some astonishment to me that any Conservative Member should never appear to have heard of the concept of effective demand. Most people, if they were asked, would love to spend their holidays in Bermuda. Most people, if they were asked, would love to be rich, or have a win on the pools, or something equally tempting. It is nonsensical to talk in these terms. Of course people would like to be well off. Of course people would like to have it cosy, but most people have a sense of reality which tells them that what they can have must be related to the means that they can command.
The problem of housing is ultimately and fundamentally one of income, which is why there is, and historically why it was determined there should be, a public sector in housing. We live in an unequal society, in a society in which there are a small number of people who have command over the goods and services, and a large number of people whose means to command goods and services are, to say the least, extremely constrained. It is with this great majority that the House should be primarily concerned.
Unfortunately, it was with the former minority that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South appeared to be most anxiously concerned. That, very shortly, illustrates the differences between Members on the Government side of the House and Opposition Members.
The simple fact is that half of the population of this country live on incomes of less than £170 a month. The average price of the average house, however one defines that, is apparently £10,000 or £11,000. At current rates of interest this would mean a monthly outgoing of between £70 and £80 in mortgage repayments. If Opposition Members are being sincere—and honest—in their protestations that everyone should own a house, it seems to me that they should come clean on the other half of that statement, which means that they should be advocating high wages. I have not noticed that Opposition Members have been particularly articulate on that subject. Indeed, during their last period of office they spent a good deal of time and energy in doing the opposite—holding down wages. If we are to have what was once called a property-owning democracy we


must have a community of people who can command enough income to have significant property. We do not have such a society. It is not yet a fact of life.
Therefore, the supply of publicly-owned property for renting must be one of our urgent considerations, and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. It is a waste of the time of this House to go on pretending that there is some kind of magic wand which can be waved and which will produce an entire society of suburban would-be Tory voters who are ever so happy about the fact that they are well off.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the Opposition. We recognise that there is and will be a continuing demand for municipally-owned houses, but what we say is that we do not see how one is helping the homeless by maintaining people who could afford a fair rent at a lower rent than they can afford. The hon. Gentleman has said nothing so far which attacks that. It is not that we do not accept the need for social housing. What we say is that we do not accept the need to keep people on over-subsidised rents in that housing. It might help them, but it does nothing for the homeless for whom the hon. Gentleman obviously cares.

Mr. Litterick: The hon. Gentleman's remarks bear all the hallmarks of coming from someone who has never lived in a council house and has never had to live on a working man's income and is never likely to have to do so. They betray yet again the appalling sense of unreality on the Opposition side of the House.
The problem for the British people, the problem of the people who live on ordinary incomes and who will never be able to move into the select, residential, owner-occupier areas of their communities, is a problem of income. In the long term, I hope that the House will seek to produce a high-wage economy. A high-wage economy will enlarge greatly the area of free choice that people have in the matter of the command of goods and services, not to speak of command over freedom, and so on.
The Bill is really another short-term measure, as the Secretary of State indicated. In a sense, it is yet another stage in

the sort of "ad hoc-ery" of which he spoke in critical terms. It is a sad commentary on the approach of this House to the matter of housing that at this late date we should still be involved in ad hoc-ery in such a major social problem as housing. The Secretary of State has indicated that there is in work now a survey of housing needs, finance and so on. It is lamentable that this survey is in progress only now and was not done many years ago.
Much play has been made by the Opposition of the fact that people want to own their house, but those of us who have had experience in local government know that the demand for rented accommodation is rising, and rising strongly. That is a fact of our experience. In my surgeries the queue of people consists mainly of those who are seeking houses to rent. We know that one of the most powerful factors bringing this about has been the almost revolutionary turn round in the state of the private market in housing during the last five years. The rate at which house prices have risen has been far more than double the rate at which wages have risen. Indeed, in one or two years the relative rates of increase of house prices and wages have been in the ratio of about five to one. With that kind of progress there is absolutely no chance of a significant change in the proportion of the population living in owner-occupied houses.
That brings us back to the rather depressing problem of how we set about providing an adequate supply of housing in the long term. As I have said, the Bill is a short-term measure. It spends much of its time demolishing the legislative debris left over from the previous Conservative administration. We all appreciate that this must be done, but as Socialists we must point out to the Government—I hope that my hon. Friends will do so again and again—that in order to move towards a socially desirable objective it is necessary to have information and to define one's objective in quantified terms.
So far as my knowledge goes, it seems to me that no one knows how many houses we actually need. No one knows, with any confidence, how many houses need to be provided to satisfy the requirements of the British people. It is said "What about the market?" With respect to the hon. Member for Chelsea


(Mr. Scott), I would remind him that the market has been tried and, as a mechanism of providing a service, it has failed. That is why the State and the municipalities are in the business of pro-viding housing accommodation on such a large scale. It is in this, as in so many other areas of social need, that the market has failed dismally. It has been a proven failure time and again. That is why we are having this debate. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he ought to read something of the economic and social history of his own country.
I conclude by offering a piece of advice to the Minister. I am prepared to sympathise with this measure and to give it my support, recognising that it is nothing more than a stopgap and that till such time as a Minister, or someone like a Minister, is able to say, to the nearest 50,000, that the British people need x hundred thousand houses, we simply do not know what we are doing. That is the state in which we find ourselves today. I look forward to the present Government actually defining the problem for the first time.

7.38 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I was congratulated by the present Secretary of State on my speech on Second Reading of the Housing Finance Act—not necessarily because he agreed with what I said but because I spoke for only two minutes.
This evening I have to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, because I have not heard the whole debate. I heard part of the Secretary of State's speech, and I was fortunate enough to hear the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), whom we are delighted to welcome as the representative of the Royal Borough. I am personally delighted, too, to be able to congratulate him on his speech from the Opposition Front Bench.
I do not want to make a controversial speech, but I hope it will be constructive if we take this opportunity on Second Reading of looking at the housing problem in somewhat more depth than would be prompted simply by a detailed consideration of the particular recommendations in the Bill.
By bringing forward this measure the Government are clearly trying to tackle the housing problem in depth, but I feel that they have failed to do so and that much still remains to be done. Much thinking will still be required on housing after the Committee stage and when the Bill has become an Act.
I should like to make three points. The first concerns the case for paying housing subsidies at all. In my view there is a convincing case for paying housing subsidies on a generous scale. I say this because we want to encourage investment to the maximum in this country in fixed assets, and to encourage people to spend less on current consumption. We can encourage them to put money aside through contractual savings schemes for house purchase. It is not only at the personal level but throughout the economy that we need to attract money into investment and away from current consumption. If housing subsidies tend to draw expenditure in that direction they must be right.
We are right to think in terms of over-housing ourselves. If people were left to buy the sort of housing that they could afford without any help, many houses would be built which would be a shoddy legacy to the next generation. It probably takes 20 or 25 years to pay for a house, but we hope that it lasts for at least 100 years more than that. To put up good houses is a wise investment, but to put up what would become the slums of the future is a bad one. So there again there is a case for housing subsidies. But if we are to give generous housing subsidies the money should be distributed fairly. At present throughout the housing field we find capricious relics of former legislation and provisions which are the left-overs of obsolete Acts or shoddy, out-of-date thinking, brought down to us from the past.
In local authority housing, which the Government are principally concerned with in the Bill, we find highly capricious variations from one district to another, and I do not think that the Bill will make that situation any better. The fair rents system may have its faults but it was at any rate an attempt to produce a national scheme, whereas here the Government seem to be reverting to a purely haphazard system of distributing housing subsidies through local government.
I particularly welcomed the aspects of the Housing Finance Act that brought benefit to furnished tenants and to people in unfurnished tenancies outside the public sector. Although the Government have, I believe, sponsored an advertising campaign in recent weeks to try to encourage the take-up of rent allowances in the private sector, my expectation is that it will continue to be pitifully small. I should like to see a scheme—a pilot scheme at all events—whereby taxpayers, or employers on behalf of taxpayers, might be encouraged to provide a statement of the amount of rent being paid and the type of accommodation. This could be put on the tax return so that the Inland Revenue could handle automatically the assessment of eligibility for rent allowances instead of leaving people to make declarations to local authorities.
Over the years taxpayers have come to trust the Inland Revenue, but are still afraid that if they make a complete declaration to the local authority of their means the information may not be treated with quite the same sort of discretion as they would wish. But that is only one reason why applications for rent allowances are so few. The Government owe it to the large private sector to deal with this. I hope that they are giving this matter serious thought from the point of view of simplifying the administrative system, because that is the only way to get their better take-up. We will not get better take-up of rent allowances by advertising, any more than we have managed to get a better take-up of family income supplements. We should try to reform the housing subsidy system as part of a total reconstruction of the cash relationship between the individual and the State.
Secondly, we have to consider the objective of getting a fair balance between ratepayers and rent payers; this, I think, is a phrase which originates from the Department. It sounds a good ideal but it has not been worked out in sufficient detail in the Bill. We shall not achieve a satisfactory relationship between rent payers in municipal housing and ratepayers unless we tackle the whole vast problem of the reconstruction of local authority finance. I appreciate that I am asking a lot, but a lot is required to solve the housing problem. There is increas-

ing bitterness and frustration in the relationships between people who have to pay rates and those living in council property. The Government should take heed of the dangers in this division of opinion and bend their minds urgently to the reconstruction of local authority finance.
I have suggested, as have others, that education costs might be taken wholly off local authorities, so that the pressure on ratepayers—which is becoming almost intolerable and which will get much worse next year—might be relieved, at any rate by a transitional measure. We must reconstruct the whole of local authority finance before we can come to a satisfactory relationship between rent payers and ratepayers.
Finally, I remind the Minister of a suggestion that I have made previously. Though I am not specially proud of the details, I am certain that my point is right. There is an unsatisfied demand for short-term accommodation and there is short-term accommodation available; but the market is frustrated by the existing state of the law. I am sure that in the Minister's constituency—I am certain of this in mine—we can find umpteen examples of accommodation not being fully used because one party or other to a potential bargain is frustrated by the terms of the present law. What possible harm could there be in allowing landlords with accommodation to let on short term and potential tenants who are looking for short-term accommodation to come to a valid relationship which could come to an end after a prearranged period of, say, two, three or five years. It would not damage the relationship between landlord and tenant in the public or private sectors who were outside such an arrangement, but it would help ensure that a large proportion of the now empty accommodation in this country could be put immediately to a social purpose. It would also help stop the deterioration of the many empty buildings that we have. I ask the Minister not to approach this matter in a doctrinaire spirit, but rather to look at it again. I have taken the trouble to work out a series of recommendations which I felt were practicable, but they fell under the Minister's whim that there should be no form of tenure which did not confer absolute total security of tenure on


the tenant. That was his rostrum. But when he comes to know the subject better, the Minister will realise the force of my argument. I hope that I may have the pleasure in due course of congratulating him on coming to the House with proposals which improve on the suggestion I have made.
I have now said enough, except to say that the Bill does not appear to me to contain anything of substance that will improve the housing situation. If anything it will make matters worse.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: When Adam Smith wrote his romantic novel on classic economic theory and the advantages of free enterprise, whatever else he had in mind it was certainly not the provision of housing. I believe that most of the examples in the book concerned the provision of pins. I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree if I were to suggest that the provision of housing is infinitely more important than the provision of pins. It is the total failure of the free enterprise market to cope with housing problems which I would have thought condemns that system more than anything else I can think of.
A little time after Adam Smith died—in 1962, in fact—I moved into the Ministry of Housing and I stayed there until 1967. One of the Ministers there was the late Richard Crossman. I understand that he threatened to publish certain diaries and has caused some heart-burning in the present Government. All I can say is that if those diaries are published, I may publish my own. I wonder whether Richard Crossman's dairy will mention the day when he drove the then tough Permanent Secretary, now Baroness Sharp, to have a little tear drip down from her eye.
There was something important in those years, however, because, as I recall it—I was then Private Secretary to the present Government Chief Whip, who was then the Minister responsible for London housing—the sort of Socialist planning which my right hon. Friend brought in had a significant effect in increasing the building and the supply of houses in London. Further, as I recall it, the housing plan of the then Labour

Government succeeded in 1967 and 1968 in advancing our housing programme and pushing completions up to 400,000 houses a year—a figure reached neither before nor since.
I remember also that that was done on the basis of pushing up to a record level not only council housing but private house building. It seems to me, therefore, that there is some cant, humbug and hypocrisy in the Conservative Party's assertion that it is the party that favours the owner-occupier.
It was in that period also, I believe, that I realised that even if one is an 18-stone rather slow-moving whizz-kid in charge of a housing corporation, one should understand that our housing problems cannot be solved just by an appearance on television, letting tears pour from one's eyes, and saying, after being concerned with housing for about six months, how sorry one is for the people who do not have houses, and that the problem is really all rather simple. One is entitled to expect a little better from Lord Goodman in this matter, for there are serious problems here.
There are serious problems of finance and interest rates—problems which may never be solved unless we alter the whole banking and building society structure in Britain. There are serious problems in the provision of land—problems which will not be solved until we bring into community ownership—I think that that is the word now—or into public ownership land needed for development. There are serious problems in our planning procedures. There is the serious problem also of getting rid of the private landlord.
There seem also to be serious problems of logic. I heard one or two hon. Members on the Conservative benches tell us about the replacement cost of houses, council and private, making comparisons regarding subsidies. They told us of figures produced by the Housing Research Foundation which, they say, show that the subsidies on council houses are £1,000 for replacement and that the corresponding figure on a private house is £300, yet in the same breath those hon. Members advise councils to sell off their council houses, reducing their housing stock, so that then, if those councils operate in areas of housing shortage, they will presumably have to build more new houses and meet


the same rising replacement costs and the same rising subsidies about which those hon. Members were complaining so bitterly a few moments before. We shall not solve our housing problem by the sort of illiterate merry-go-round madness we hear from hon. Members opposite.
I think that the most distressing event ever to happen in housing in my lifetime was the Housing Finance Act 1972. I was at that time a councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth. I do not think that I can remember such a class-conscious Act, so redolent of hatred. I do not think that I can remember an Act of Parliament so designed to cause direct conflict between central and local government, or an Act designed to cause so much conflict between local councillors and the tenants of their councils.
Nevertheless, I believe that that Act had one useful result in that it brought home again to the Labour movement the fact that in the last resort conscience is more important than the rule of law. If, as a result of the Housing Finance Act—I speak as a barrister—we have learned the primacy of conscience over law, we must all be grateful to whoever it was who introduced it.
If there be a party which favours the owner-occupier, that party is the Labour Party. Let us have no doubt about it. In the past four years, we have seen new house prices rise by 100 per cent. We have seen mortgage interest rates rise from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent., and we all know that when Labour took office in February last they were about to take off to 13 per cent., that further rise being held back by loans and subsidies from this Government. We saw housing starts and completions plummet more than they had ever done, whichever years one takes, going back to 1950 or even back to 1945, and we have seen our housing programme in a state of collapse, or only just slowly picking up. To stand on that record, as the Conservatives do, and say that theirs is the party which favours the owner-occupier is to turn logic on its head.
I had some statistics from the building societies put through my door this morning. Although my Front Bench may not agree, I must straight away state my personal view that building societies should be taken into public ownership on a regional basis. They are not profit-

making organisations, there is a great deal of inefficiency in them, and I cannot see any basic public objection to that happening. Indeed, I think that it will happen within the next 10 years.
Let us discuss the problem on the basis of what exists now. I hope that the Government are proceeding with their stabilisation fund and with their housing finance agency, which is to help new house buyers. The statistics put through my door this morning show that the assets of the building societies were £20,000 million. They show that the liquid assets of the building society movement were 18·9 per cent. of that £20,000 million, and that the inflow of funds for the third quarter of this year were about £547 million.
All that seems to me to put the building societies in a more than healthy state, and I wonder why, with their asset structure as such, their liquid asset structure and their current income at so high a level, they cannot be considering reducing their rate of mortgage interest by ½ per cent. or so. I became an owner-occupier for the first time only about eight months ago, and even while I was carrying out my purchase the interest rate was rising by ½ per cent., then another ½ per cent., and then another ½ per cent. That was Tory Britain. The Tories have certainly cost me a packet.
It seems to me that we may well be coming to a time when we have to put some pressure on the building societies to reduce their interest rate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister's principal economic adviser, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and perhaps the Governor of the Bank of England—because it is difficult to see why interest rates, as such—it is interest rates which determine mortgage interest rates—are quite so high. Certainly, our interest rates seem to be fairly high by international standards. It may well be that the time has come for those who govern the operation of our finances to exert some general pressure to bring down interest rates, so that we may then bring down mortgage interest rates.
I know all the arguments about the dangers of Arab oil money—petro-dollar money as I think it is now called—disappearing from this country, but if our


interest rates are competitive it may well be that the time has come to do something to bring them down a bit, and thus bring down the mortgage interest rate.
Perhaps I could give a bit of hope to the country here, double-edged though it may be. Looking at the current economic calamity around us, and looking at the slight recession in world trade and the basic economic trends, I think it almost inevitable that over the next year or two interest rates will actually fall in this country, and mortgage interest rates will fall as a result. That might make the 9 per cent. offered by the Conservatives look a little silly, since it may well be that interest rates will come down to 9 per cent. or even lower of their own accord. Unfortunately, however, as I hinted earlier, that may well be associated with other economic difficulties.
My next point concerns my constituency, but I am sure that it concerns others, too. I refer to the idea of councils purchasing private property in what are commonly called private areas. I served on the Wandsworth Council. It was the policy of that council—a council described as a Socialist island in private enterprise London—to purchase every private house it could afford. That was a desirable and effective policy. The same policy is now being carried out in Luton, and I have had complaints from residents of private property who say that the council should not purchase property in private areas because it lowers property values. I reiterate that this policy is wholly desirable, and anything the Government can do to encourage it will have my support. It is regrettable that private tenants should adopt this attitude. Luton has 4,000 families on its waiting list and that list is increasing by 6 families a week. Any council which failed to do all it could to purchase housing in those circumstances would be negligent.
On this issue, there is a great divide between the two sides of the House, but I would hope nevertheless for the support of the Conservatives. I seem to remember that it was the Conservative Party that was always talking about "social mix". Sometimes it seems that they are limiting social mix to the sale of council houses to council tenants on council estates. The Labour Government decided

to extend that policy to private areas. It is deplorable that people should be divided up according to religion, according to those who have and those who have not been to university, those who have and have not been to grammar schools and those who do and who do not live in council houses. That final distinction is one of the most disheartening and nauseating that I have discovered. My next-door neighbour told me that he was thinking of selling his house and I advised him to offer it to the local council. I do not know why the Conservatives do not support the Government in that policy.
The Bill appears to be a genuine step along the right road. It provides for increased subsidies and will enable councils to hold down their rents, although, inevitably, there will be rent increases. It reasserts the principle of local democracy in housing and because that vital principle has been reintroduced the Bill will have my wholehearted support.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I should like to pick up some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore). He was a little unfair to Lord Goodman's lecture. I had the privilege of being at that lecture. One message that Lord Goodman conveyed, and which we should not deprecate, was that there was a need for passion for the country's housing requirements. Too many times we get ourselves bogged down with Finance Acts and different Housing Acts without tackling the main need, which is more and better housing. I think that that was what Lord Goodman was trying to say. It was a pity the hon. Member was not at the lecture because if he had heard the noble Lord's tone he would not have criticised him.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Luton, West realises that planning procedures, finance and land are at the root of the principal problems in housing. I hope he will remember that when the Government introduce later Bills which might dry up the supply of land.
The hon. Member criticised the building societies. Surely it was the Labour Government who, in the last six months, ran to the rescue of the building societies


and poured money into them. Now suddenly, when the societies are putting their own houses in order and attracting money in order to ease the problem of a Government loan the hon. Member criticises them. He talked about social mix. I agree with him on this point. It is one of the reasons I favour the sale of council houses. One of my principal convictions in life is that we should not think in terms of up the tracks and down the tracks.
I agree with the Labour Member who criticised the Bill for being a slightly ad hoc measure. It is a hurried Bill designed to fulfil some election pledge and must be speeded through in order to satisfy some political motivation. It is a pity these provisions were not embodied in a general housing Bill.
I remember sitting in this Chamber during debate on the Rent Bill in which the previous Labour Government sought to deal with the problems of rented accommodation. I said to the Minister that if the Bill went through there would be a shortage of rented accommodation, particularly for university students. He said something along the lines that I did not know what I was talking about and that what I was saying was nonsense. During the election campaign I had the opportunity of travelling by train in my constituency and I met a number of students. The first thing they asked me was "Who was the nut who passed this Rent Act? It means that we have nowhere to live and we are fed up walking around Reading looking for somewhere to sleep." If that is the sort of housing legislation we can expect from the Government I shall be twitching all the way through at the thought of what it might lead to in housing.
We need to look into the problem of getting more housing instead of directing our attention to bringing in new Acts to stop this and that. I welcome the provision in the Bill which is directed at getting more housing, but I oppose destructive legislation. I agree that subsidies are haphazard, and these provisions could well reinforce that situation and create unfairness throughout the country.
Another point involves local government reorganisation and finance. If we ignore local government finance the Bill will make the difficulties of local govern-

ment even worse. We face a serious housing situation. There has been too much interference in housing by politicians of both sides. If politicians had kept their sticky fingers out we might by now have solved the problems. Whenever we introduce legislation it only seems to make the housing situation worse and the housing lists longer and longer.
I think the Bill will create a lack of mobility. This will cause problems because people will find it difficult to move from one part of the country to another owing to fixed rents, low rents and subsidies. They will be reluctant to move just when mobility should be encouraged because of the problems of the north and the desire of the people there to come south or to go elsewhere to work. In Reading companies have great difficulty in finding labour. I am always told that the shortage of housing is one of the principal causes of the problem.
I repeat now my favourite cause. It is that the ratepayers will have to pay again, which is the principal problem with a Bill like this. Eventually part of the cost will be borne on the rates, and pressure on ratepayers is bad enough already.
I hope that the Government will look into the question of housing estates. We have created a society in which enormous housing estates are built by local authorities of all political complexions. Our management of those estates is not very good. We have put too great a strain on local authorities in the efficient running of their estates.
I am not criticising anyone in particular, but the problem needs serious attention. We tend to make an estate, fill it up with people on the housing list and say "Good—lots more people are now fixed up with housing". Then we push on to build the next estate, forgetting those living in the estate we have just built, people who are sometimes suffering from bad bus services and bad repair services and a lack of community centres and other important amenities. I hope that in their long-term examination of housing need the Government will take into account the general management of housing estates. People tend to feel that they are cut off in such estates. I walked round one in my constituency recently and was told by a woman in a block of flats "I cannot even


have a decent row with my husband because everyone down the block will hear exactly what I say". We must seriously consider such social problems.
I have deep reservations about the Bill. It will be expensive for local government and will cause immobility and injustice. Therefore, I support the Conservative view of the Bill, and shall vote against the Bill.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) will forgive me if I do not go all the way through his argument. I agree with little of what he said. Perhaps we can find some common ground in his comments about the management of local authority estates, although one of the advantages of local authority building over building by the speculative builder is that local authorities generally ensure that shops and other facilities are put on the estates, whereas many speculative builders are interested only in cramming in as many houses as possible, to obtain the maximum profit.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that politicians should keep their hands out of housebuilding. As politicians, such as they are, are the product of our democratic system, they are the very people who should be concerned with housebuilding and its control. What is the alternative? In whose hands are we to put house building—the builders, the property speculators, the get-rich-quick boys? Are they the people to whom the future of Britain's housing should be entrusted? Whatever may be the failings of politicians, I would much rather have them dealing with the issue than have uncertain gentlemen of the type I have mentioned.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least not following the line of many of the other speeches from the Opposition benches, which concentrated on the old myth perpetuated by the Conservatives that there is something superior about owner-occupation compared with local authority housing. We on this side also have a responsibility for perpetuating the myth, because we have not advanced forcefully enough the great advantages of being local authority tenants and of developing local authority estates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) said that he has recently become an owner-occupier. I am sure that he will agree that if Labour control had been maintained in Luton for many years, and there had been vast local authority estates able to meet his need, he would have been one of the first to occupy a local authority house there. We have a duty, which we have neglected, to tell the public at large that the idea that private building is superior to public sector building is a myth. It is true that the majority would like to buy their own house, but that is because they believe the myth. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we would all like to take holidays in the Bahamas. The sad fact is that the cost of the average private house for owner-occupation is now beyond the means of 90 per cent. of our population.
Therefore, private housebuilding provides no answer to the biggest part of our housing problem. For a solution to the problem we must look to more and more building of local authority houses for rent. Otherwise, we shall be denying 90 per cent. of the population any chance of obtaining a home.
One Conservative Member suggested that the Housing Finance Act had generated a greater demand for house purchase. He may be right, but what he did not tell us was that as a result of that generation of demand the price of houses over about 18 months nearly doubled, reducing the ability of the vast majority of the population to purchase houses.
Therefore, we come again to the obvious answer that the only possible solution to our housing problem lies with public sector housing for rent.

Mr. Durant: Rubbish.

Mr. Roberts: These are the simple statistics of the situation.
In my constituency we have large areas of former National Coal Board land, and other land still owned by the board, great parts of which are suitable for housing development. If the land is ultimately to be developed for housing—which, if it is accompanied by the necessary industry, might be a suitable way of dealing with the land—and if it is to meet the needs of the many thousands


of people on housing waiting lists in my constituency, and perhaps help the thousands more in the West Midlands conurbation who are on housing lists, the bulk of the housing development must be local authority housing for rent.
I hope that the Government will examine areas where such development could take place, and consider what form of additional help towards local authority housing should be given to them.
I welcome the Bill because it increases the subsidy available for local authority housing and will, therefore, make an important contribution to local authority housing programmes. But I have one or two doubts about the extent of parts of the subsidy. First, I am slightly worried that the local authorities will find themselves effectively with a lower level of subsidy in real terms because of inflation.
Secondly, while I particularly welcome the special element, there seems to be some limitation on it, as it is confined to one year. The third but certainly not the minor point is that there appears to be no provision for the extension of housing expenditure to areas not covered by the capital estimates. This means that, in the case of services which local authorities have to provide in housing the homeless, for example, there is no special provision.
All these are areas in which the provisions of the Bill could be tightened up, but on the whole I welcome it because it increases the power of local authorities to build housing for rent. But the Bill can only be regarded as a first step towards solving our housing problem. I believe we shall have to have much greater subsidies, and a much greater concentration on the housing drive, if, in the next decade or so, we are to come anywhere near to solving Britain's great housing problem.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), who concluded with a plea for ever-larger subsidies, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks, because I want to start with bricks. We have about 750 million bricks standing idle. At the same time, we have seen over the last six months some 20 or more brick-making plants closed down and some 2,000 professional

brick makers made redundant. We now have enough bricks to build a wall five feet high from here to Cape Town. That is a measure of the current crisis in the building industry. Yet a year ago there was a shortage of bricks.
Equally, 18 months ago, it was almost impossible to get good building labour, because the industry was flat out. Good "brickies" could command their own prices and the small self-employed builder had order lists as long as his arm. Indeed, the whole building and construction industry was going forward—at high prices, admittedly, but it was thriving and expanding. Today, there is unemployment, and as the Minister, who is a fair man, will acknowledge, that unemployment is bound to grow.
Thirdly, surveying the national building scene, I note houses standing empty all over the country. Some of them are only half built because there is no money to complete them; some are three-quarters built; many others are standing empty because those who would sell them cannot find buyers. I do not know the exact figures, but I wager that scores of thousands of houses cannot be sold because would-be purchasers cannot find the money.
The other feature of the building scene is that, while we have an abundance of unused building materials and of unemployed building labour, along with a very large number of houses unsold, still hundreds of thousands of our constituents are desperately in need of homes. There is no Member of this House who does not know, from his weekly surgery, that the housing problem is getting more serious every day.
This by any measure is an absurd situation. We have the materials, we have the labour, we have many houses and we have also the demand. But we have failed—all Governments have failed—to put these factors together in a fashion that meets the need.
It is fair to quote the National Federation of Housebuilders in discussing the present crisis. I believe that the House will be united in accepting that these figures are correct. In the three months between July and September, private sector starts were 55 per cent. lower than in the same period last year and completions


were 33 per cent. down. The federation goes on to say:
There is now little prospect of total private starts this year exceeding a level of about 110.000, or more than 50,000 fewer than in the worst year of the past 10 years.
The federation concludes:
Those involved in the industry believe that that next year's private starts are unlikely to exceed 100,000, and some have suggested that they could fall to a level of only 50,000.
Once again this is a desperate measure of the current crisis in the home building industry. I say that as one who occupied a ministerial office in the Department of the Environment for some years. It seems that all Governments have failed to solve the housing problem. There are perhaps many physical reasons. This is a small island with many people and little land on which to house them. That is an intractable reality with which all Governments have to struggle.
Further, there are many secular changes taking place in our society. For example, we marry younger, we have children younger and many of us, thank heavens, live longer. We now need to house four generations in what used to be the span of three generations. There are massive secular changes which add to the basic and intractable shortages of land.
Our people have much greater mobility. More houses are needed because we move around. My experience has led me to conclude that while we cannot overcome the intractable problems concerned with the shortage of land, the density of population and the secular changes in our society our policies by and large have made the matter worse. Why is it that the Germans have not failed to provide their people with housing? I shall not go into the figures as the Minister knows that I am right. The Germans have not failed, by and large the Americans have not failed, but we have.
There are many reasons for our failure and I shall not weary the House with them all. I shall merely list a few. First, our land planning is over-elaborate and far too lengthy. For some time I had responsibility for planning. I was appalled to learn that it still takes approximately 100 weeks to move from the final report of an inspector on a planning decision to the Secretary of State's decision. That is not good enough.

Equally, we do far too much nitpicking over the details and thereby delay and damage the building industry. Above all, all Governments have failed to provide stable financial conditions for the industry and for those who would rent or purchase homes.
It is against that background that I have examined the Bill. I have tried to examine it objectively. I have not spoken on this subject in the House for many years. First, the Bill is plainly expensive in that it will cost about £700 million. We hear that we shall be endorsing that sum to be spent on behalf of the taxpayer. Secondly, it is complicated. There are five different types of subsidy to be administered by the over-burdened local authorities. Further, will it build any more homes? I shall not get into an argument but in my view it will build no more homes than would have been built without it.
Will the Bill improve more of the older and decaying homes, particularly those in our great conurbations and in rural areas such as the constituency which I represent? Having had some responsibility for home improvement grants in the previous Conservative administration, which have been something of a success, I do not believe that this measure will improve any more homes than would have been improved without it. Next, will it help the elderly? Will it build many of the one and two-bedroomed small homes for the elderly so that they can be looked after properly? I do not believe that it will.
Will the Bill help to end the under-occupation of far too many of our three-bedroomed council houses which are occupied very often by lonely elderly people who have lost their mate and who find themselves unable to maintain the garden and unable to heat that much room? Will the Bill allow the younger growing families to move into three-bedroomed homes? Having examined the Bill I am bound to say that it will not help to end under-occupation and that it will not provide any more of the one and two-bedroomed homes which are so badly needed by the elderly.
I come to what I believe needs to be done. I will merely list some of the main points which I believe the Bill should contain. First it should try, and Heaven


knows it is hard, to restore confidence to the building industry. That is easy to say but desperately difficult to do. I advise the Minister that if he really wants to restore that confidence—and I believe that he does—the first thing he must do is to persuade his colleagues to give up the nonsense of nationalising building land.
That nonsense will not restore confidence nor will it build any more houses. It will not achieve the purposes which the Minister and I wish to see realised. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should persuade his colleagues, if he can, to use some of the public funds that in my view they are wastefully disbursing on other projects to bring down the interest rate for home owners. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who proposed this during a little disagreement we had a short time ago, was absolutely right. It is an intelligent use of public funds. It will help the building industry and it will help people.
I suggest that if the Minister were to table a short amendment to the appropriate clause to bring in a 9 per cent. mortgage interest rate he would have the overwhelming support of both sides of the Committee. I suggest that he should provide, and I will presume to commit my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench on this, some help with the deposit. I assure him that his amendment, suitably couched, would go through Committee with no difficulty.
Beyond that the Minister should, through this Bill, require local authorities to offer their council houses for sale to those who wish to buy them and are able to do so. He should use some of the money that local authorities would get from such sales to build more of the one and two-bedroom houses so badly needed by the elderly.
I have tried to look at the Bill to see whether the Minister, who has a fertile mind and a deep conscience on this matter, has been able to think up something in a Bill which contains five different kinds of subsidy that is better than anything the Tory Party had when in Government. I have looked carefully, but I am bound to tell him that I cannot find those new ideas. Therefore I must tell the hon. Gentleman—and I those same property speculators and

it—that I believe his Bill will fail because it is founded in political prejudice. It is anti-home ownership and anti-ratepayer. It is the antithesis of sound housing finance.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will get his Second Reading. No doubt he will go through a gruelling Committee stage. I am sure of that because I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) will be on the Committee. I am sure he will make certain that the Bill is examined in great detail. This Bill will not help with the problems of home ownership and homelessness. It will not reduce the queues in all of our surgeries. All that it will do is to advance a little further the creeping control of our people and the creeping waste of their money which is the hallmark of the present administration.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We have had from the Opposition tonight a mishmash of ideas based on no particular distinct political philosophy. Earlier, one Conservative Member, who has, of course, since left the Chamber said that the Bill was an effort to please council tenants, as though the Opposition's efforts in offering council houses at considerably below the market value during the election was somehow totally divorced from a desire to win the votes of council tenants.
Then we had the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) talking about a surplus of bricks. Does he not think that there are some contradictions in a private enterprise free market system and that sometimes it will break down? In housing it breaks down with monotonous regularity. This is something the Government are trying to eradicate by introducing some Socialist element and some degree of regulation. He should not grumble about these contradictions and then complain about an expenditure of £700 million in an effort to regulate at least part of them.
As for creeping control, the Housing Finance Act was regarded by many local authorities as creeping control by central Government. They were not even allowed to regulate or to assess their rents. They were not even allowed to decide when they should impose rent
increases. The rent increases were


decided not by local authorities but by the men in Whitehall. The consensus of opinion of local authorities, Conservative and Labour controlled, was that the Tory Government, who introduced the Housing Finance Act 1972, imposed control for purely doctrinaire reasons.
The background of this debate is, by common consent, a situation of crisis in housing. It is worth reminding ourselves and putting on record that in 1973, under the Conservative administration, we had the worst housing situation since 1959. In 1973, 293,000 houses were completed. In 1968, under the Labour Government, 413,000 houses were completed. In 1973 there was an expression of the doctrinaire opposition of the Conservative Government because we had the lowest number of council house completions since 1945. Therefore, when the Labour Government were elected, they inherited a severe and difficult housing crisis, and I do not think that it is a point of argument that interest rates were about to go up to 13 per cent.
Hon. Members in the Opposition have said that high interest rates are bad. So they are. If anyone has doctrinaire opposition to high interest rates, it is the Labour Party. It is a number of years since Dr. Hugh Dalton, who was then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, fought the City to get interest rates down to 3 per cent. He failed because of the power of the City. The Labour Party does not stand for high interest rates because the people who benefit from them gain their incomes without contributing to the community. However, when the Opposition talk about high interest rates they might point out, in all fairness, that it was under the Conservative Government that mortgage interest rates increased from 8 per cent. to 11 per cent. and that the Labour Government halted the rise to 13 per cent. only by making a massive loan of £500 million to the building societies.
The building societies have sent to a number of hon. Members—I do not suppose that I am any exception—statistics which clearly show that that loan has helped. For example, in the first quarter of this year the increase in savings was a paltry £135 million. By the third quarter the increase was £547 million because of the increase in confidence among the building societies and investors as a result

of the loan. The number of loans on new houses has increased from 24,000 in the first quarter to 27,000 in the third quarter. It is not a matter for complacency, but at least that is a move in the right direction.
In their document the building societies say:
The number of mortgages granted rose sharply from the depressed level of the second quarter, reflecting the improvement in net receipts and drawings on the Government loan. £792 million was advanced to 119,000 home-buyers in the quarter.
Therefore, the Government have made some effort to improve the situation in the private sector. They have encouraged local authorities to advance mortgages to first-time buyers. They have also allocated £350 million to the public sector.
One characteristic of the Opposition is that they regard the debate as being about the owner-occupier versus the council tenant. It is nothing of the sort. The speeches made by Opposition Members reflect a characteristically divisive attitude. Both council tenants and owner-occupiers face the same problems—increasing costs, the difficuties of getting homes of any sort, the increase in maintenance costs, and so on. It is not a question of for or against.
One factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is common to both council tenants and owner-occupiers. What will improve our housing situation beyond all recognition is the public ownership of building land. Building land is limited in supply, and it has always been a gross abuse by a privileged minority that when they have got their greedy fingers on to land they have been able to obtain a large unearned capital gain as soon as planning permission has been granted. The Labour policy of taking into public ownership development land at existing use value was one of the most important elements of our policy at the recent election.
That is a pledge that we must fulfil, and one that the Labour movement has been asking about for the past 40 or 50 years. I want to see a measure for the public ownership of development land in conjunction with this Bill as a general attack on the grave housing crisis. It is encouraging to note that the Government have issued a White Paper on the problem.
I welcome the Bill especially because it removes from local authorities, however they are controlled, the requirement to charge a profit-making rent on council houses. The Bill allows a greater degree of flexibility to local authorities. It does not allow total flexibility, but no legislation ever does. The Government nearly always give some powers to a Secertary of State to administer the nuts and bolts of legislation by orders, and this Bill is no exception, but local authorities, for the first time since 1972, will be able to assess their own needs in public housing. My constituency of Keighley is a relatively low-wage area. Wages there, in comparison with wages in the Midlands, London and the South-East, are much lower. That is one of the most important reasons why a local authority, in conjunction with central Government subsidies, should be allowed to assess its own level of rents, without the imposition of a doctrinaire basis from Whitehall.
In contrast to what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, the general pattern of the Bill is to encourage local authorities to build public sector housing and to give them confidence. It is regrettable but true that many hundreds of thousands have put down their names on council house lists. We want to encourage people into good homes, either owner-occupied or public sector. It is the price increase and the increased interest rate under the Conservative administration that have forced people on to the housing lists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) is a welcome addition to the House, and a welcome replacement. As he said, we cannot wave a magic wand and wish people into an income bracket to enable them to purchase homes. There will always be a need for low-cost houses for rent.
We have heard a good deal in this debate about council houses, and indeed, this subject was the centre of a Conservative bribe in the election. I believe that the selling of council houses is a retrograde step. It takes out of stock readily available low-cost housing which cannot easily be replaced. In Keighley, where houses have had to be sold and offered back to the local authority within five years, a certain number of urgently-

needed houses have been standing empty, since the process of sale and resale, as against the process of reletting, takes many months.
The Housing Finance Act, which this Bill happily replaces, was the most divisive measure which the Conservative Government ever introduced. Although we have heard from Conservative Members that meetings on the Housing Finance Act attracted only a small number of council tenants I can tell the House that in Keighley there were huge, crowded meetings at which great concern was expressed about the onerous obligations which that Act imposed on tenants. We must remember that that legislation involved penalties if rent scrutineers were obstructed, and that there were means tests which changed as a person's income altered. This was the sort of situation which Labour Members discovered in their constituencies, although Conservative Members do not appear to have had a similar experience.
Conservative Members have said that the Bill should be criticised because we are keeping an election pledge. The Government are more likely to be criticised if they do not keep their election pledges. I am pleased and proud that the Labour Government are keeping on the paths they trod in Labour's election manifesto and are following the line laid down by rank and file members of the Labour Party. If the Labour Government keep on that path we shall have no worries in giving our people an improved housing programme or in facing the people at tha next election.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), who asked why Conservatives are unable to support the Government's proposals for the acquision by local authorities of houses built for private use. The justification lies in lengthening council house lists. The Government have created their own justification for the Bill since, because of their action, these lists were bound to lengthen, owing to the fact that the market in private furnished accommodation has dried up as a result of the Rent Act 1974.
Furthermore, the proposals for land nationalisation will leave the market in


development land in the same bureaucratic muddle as happened in the past when the Land Commission was in operation. As a result the supply of building land will dry up. This may give great satisfaction to Labour Members, but it will be a cruel and horrible blow to young couples who hope to buy their own houses.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Conservatives appear to be unaware of the fact that in the Greater London area the supply of private rented property dried up long before the Labour Government introduced their Rent Act. The supply began to dry up when the owners of the huge estates in central and outer London sought to break up their estates to gain huge profits by selling independently. The fact is that the private rented sector was dead long before the Labour Government tried to remedy the situation.

Mr. Budgen: I accept what the hon. Lady says. Government after Government interfered in the market in furnished accommodation and, in an attempt to try to help tenants, it has been made impossible for landlords to get any reasonable return on money in accommodation. As a result, by good intentions, they have done grievous harm to exactly the people whom they want to benefit.
The same will be done by land nationalisation. We shall have another bureaucratic muddle which will dry up the supply of development land. The same is being done by indiscriminate subsidies to council housing. By indiscriminately subsidising council housing, we make it comparatively more attractive than any other form of housing.
We see that for all these reasons the lists for council housing are increasing and will continue to increase. No doubt that situation will give further justification to Government supporters who suggest that the Government should be encouraging local authorities to buy into private estates.
The Opposition believe that that policy is wrong on about every ground possible. It is ridiculous that a Government who rode to power on attacking property speculators should now be bailing out those same property speculators and

developers of private housing. It is wrong also because it prevents the prices of completed private housing falling. We find that young couples who in most respects live in a market situation, see the market being rigged against them. When housing might fall in price, it is now in an unhappy situation where the price is being kept up by Government intervention.
The Government's proposals are hideously expensive. The tax relief on mortgage interest payments on an average house is about £280 a year. But the subsidy in terms of rates and taxes on the average council house is now running at about £900 a year. When the great increases in rates come in the spring of next year, I hope that every ratepayer knows how much he is paying out in indiscriminate subsidies to council tenants.
These proposals are also unfair on those who have bought houses on private estates only to find that the other houses are being purchased by the local authority. The original purchasers bought their houses in the expectation that the estate would all be owned by private—

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman said that council house tenants were subsidised to the extent of about £1,000 a year. Will he tell us where he gets that information? Perhaps he can also clarify a point made earlier by one of his hon. Friends that council house tenants are subsidised to the tune of £1,000 a year whereas private house owners are subsidised to the tune of only £300. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that the private owner-occupier gets the least subsidy in the first year and the heaviest at the end of his mortgage, whereas the reverse is true of the council tenant.

Mr. Budgen: The subsidy of about £900 is based upon a house costing £10,000—

Mr. Michael Latham: Apparently the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) is not aware that the figures about which he is arguing come from the Housing Research Foundation, which is an independent body, and the Minister made no attempt to refute the figures.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Douglas-Mann: What about the second part of my question? What about the decline in the amount of subsidy towards the latter end of a council tenant's occupation of his house?

Mr. Budgen: I think that I dealt with the first part. I am sure that the House will understand if I try to complete my speech in the time allotted to me.
The proposals are unfair because those persons who buy houses on private estates and find later that the remainder of the houses are purchased by the local authority are faced with declining house values. We are opposed to the Government's proposals in this regard, but not, I hasten to add, because we believe that the council tenant is some second-class citizen. We are a national party or we are nothing. We gain much support from council tenants. I am not suggesting that we do not wish to see council tenants move into private occupation. When council tenants move into private estates the prices of the remaining houses tend to drop because people who own their own homes tend to look after them rather better than if someone else owns those houses, particularly if the someone else is a local authority.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman made the interesting observation that he was not opposed to council tenants moving into private occupation. Will he equally place on record the fact that he is not opposed to owner-occupiers moving into and becoming tenants of council houses? If he is not opposed to council tenants aspiring to become owner-occupiers, is he equally unopposed to owner-occupiers aspiring to become council tenants?

Mr. Budgen: Certainly not if they wished to do so. No doubt if ratepayers and taxpayers continue to have to give a vast subsidy to council tenants many more people will want to enjoy that subsidy.
I now turn to the proposals by which local authorities are to be encouraged to buy houses which have been completed on private estates. I believe that is wrong because of the way that it is proposed to be done. For example, in my constituency an estate called Wrekin Drive was partially completed. The builder got

into financial difficulties and the local authority decided to purchase the remaining houses. People who had purchased the first few houses that had been completed were deeply disturbed by these proposals because, as I remarked earlier, they realised that the prices of their homes would go down. They wished to make representations, but they found that the Minister had given loan sanction for the purchase long before they had any opportunity to make those representations. That again shows that these proposals are not merely wrong in principle, but are being put forward in a dangerous, doctrinaire and dictatorial manner. The proper objection of those who lived nearby were not considered at all.
I believe that these proposals are wrong in every way because they add to the immobility of labour. We are moving towards a period of high rate of unemployment. We must have a more mobile labour force. If an increasing proportion of our labour force is moving into subsidised accommodation it will be even more difficult to reduce the high level of unemployment.
Lastly, these proposals are wrong as a matter of deep philosophy, for the extension of public sector housing will leave many more people dependent upon the whim of the State. It is too great a price to pay so that the Labour Party can, by subsidy, encourage more people to vote for it.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox: I welcome this opportunity to reinforce the views of my hon. Friends. I have listened carefully to the debate, and as far as I can remember no one on either side of the House has denied that in the housing industry and in housing we face the most critical situation. It seems reasonable, therefore, that any measure introduced into the House should have the desire to restore that confidence that is sadly lacking, and I say straight away that it is incredible that the Bill should be introduced at this time and in this form. There are far more important areas to be tackled than that with which the Bill seeks to deal, but we must remember that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are full of enthusiasm for subsidies, if for nothing else, and the Bill can be seen as yet another example of their interest in that sort of activity.
We must remember and bear in mind what has been said by the Secretary of State, and I am glad that he has returned to the Chamber because I want to say something about him. Between 1970 and 1974, two measures aroused incredible intensity of opposition. There are no prizes for recalling that they were the Industrial Relations Bill and the Housing Finance Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here. Hon. Gentlemen opposite connived at people taking action outside the law, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will not regard it as his finest hour when, last week, he took certain actions to remove certain penalties—but we shall return to that at some future date. I think that the right hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag when, early in the debate, he said that the Government intended to cut the throat of the Housing Finance Act at a stroke. That is the justification for bringing the Bill before us today.
I must first question the priorities of the Government. I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Construction is present, because he will have the final word in the debate. I know that we have had a word or two on occasion, but I want to remind the hon. Gentleman of something that he said recently:
This report on housebuilders' expectations for 1975 confirms my recently expressed view that the decline in private sector housebuilding has at last been halted. This was the first objective of Government action in this field during the last six months. There is still a long way to go"—
the hon. Gentleman is right, is he not?—
before we can expect a full recovery in output. But the industry should now look towards a period of increased activity.
I expect the hon. Gentleman will want to forget that fairly quickly, but he said then what was the first objective of Government action in this field. Does the hon. Gentleman now say that it is not as important as it was? I understand the Minister says that it is. I put it to him that the situation is even worse. It is not often that the Minister smiles. I must be doing well.
Last week, in reply to a Question, the Secretary of State—and he quoted part of this in his opening speech—said:
Up to the end of September 1974 the number of houses completed in the public

sector in Great Britain was up by 13 per cent., houses started by 28 per cent. and houses put into contract by 35 per cent. compared with the same period of 1973.
The right hon. Gentleman stopped there. He did not go on to quote the rest of his answer which was:
Comparable figures for the private sector show falls of 26 per cent. in completions and 52 per cent. in starts. I am deeply dissatisfied with these figures. Despite the rise in council house building and the much healthier flow of mortgages, the position is still highly unsatisfactory. I am urgently considering what further intiatives we might take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 382.]
I do not know about being "dissatisfied". The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of those figures. He ought to be taking action in that area rather than wasting the time of the House on this Bill. I do not expect hon. Members on the Government side of the House to like this. When I see the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) getting aerated, it does me a power of good. He is my next-door neighbour. I like to see him in that state.
But the Secretary of State for the Environment then gave a gleam of hope. He went to a conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council at Brighton and said:
I find it hard to see how our short-term deficiency in the number of homes can be put right if we use only conventional weapons. Should we not give the most serious thought to an emergency programme of quicker, cheaper homes?
Does not "emergency "mean" immediately ", and that the matter should be tackled as a first priority? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The total resources we have available for housing are inevitably limited.
We all agree with him. We only wish that his actions today were in line with the statements that he has made previously.
What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do in bringing forward this measure? We can only guess at the increase in subsidies. Many of my hon. Friends have suggested that it could be a much higher figure than many imagine. But we on the Opposition benches are united in the view that whatever the total of that subsidy, the money could have been better spent. Why not spend it in providing homes for the homeless, or in


initiating a scheme for newly-married or first-time purchasers?
Before any hon. Member questions me, I do believe that there should be building in the public sector as well as the private sector. The Conservative Party has never been opposed to that. It has been suggested from the Government side of the House that, indeed, we are opposed to public building. That is not so. Would it not have made more sense, however, to get local authorities to review the genuine housing needs of people on their waiting lists and to concentrate their efforts and the Government's efforts on building for those special categories? I know of no survey which has produced the up-to-date situation. Does the Secretary of State wish to intervene?

Mr. Crosland: I am distressed to hear that the hon. Gentleman knows of no survey. After all, his party was in power for three and a half years. That gave the Conservatives a certain amount of time to produce the survey for which he is asking.

Mr. Fox: Agreed—but I think that the Secretary of State will accept that the situation today is far worse than it was a year ago. I am only suggesting that it is in that area of special need that the Government should be taking action. They are doing nothing at present.
As all of us know from our interview mornings or surgeries—call them what we will—the problem which faces us is the heartbreak of young people trying to find a home when we can do nothing to help them. But the Government can certainly do something in this respect by a crash programme. There is no sign of that. There is a lot of talk, but that is all. The one area in which money is proposed in the Bill could certainly be shifted, and it could be used in that way.
I do not wish to quote again from the report of the independent Housing Research Foundation because it must be becoming extremely annoying to hon. Members on the Government benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members encourage me, as I encouraged the Secretary of State to intervene, I shall respond. The Housing Research Foundation has given the following figures for total housing subsidies in 1973. Taking all council housing into account, the

average subsidy to each council house was £77, whereas taking all owner-occupiers into account, the average subsidy to each owner-occupier was £55. That is an historic fact. If one takes the subsidy figure for the provision of new houses, one finds, as has been said in the debate, that one can provide three times as many homes for owner-occupiers as one can for council tenants.
The Bill shows the Government's thinking in this matter and that they are not prepared to use public money in the most effective way. This is where we see the political dogma once again. What is proposed in the Bill points to that being true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) gave a graphic account of the problems facing the industry. He not only talked about unemployment and the number of houses that have been built and are standing empty, but also gave a graphic account of problems regarding planning. Who can doubt that it is in this area that considerable help can be given to get us over the crisis that we all want to solve?
The Bill contains a number of commitments. It will be seen as a further commitment by the Government towards concentration of all housing action in the provision of more council houses for general need, irrespective of people's resources or requirements. The Bill turns the clock back. It is a return to indiscriminate and costly housing subsidies. Why tamper with the present system which makes full provision for families in need living in council houses to be subsidised? I can see no advantage in any change.
There are generous rebates under the Housing Finance Act. Approximately 1,750,000 tenants are receiving benefits of this kind. Why should the ratepayer and taxpayer generally—including all sorts of people, such as young couples who are struggling to pay mortgages and elderly people in private rented accommodation—be expected to subsidise the rents of better-off council tenants? Yet this is what will happen under the Bill. Apart from land nationalisation, it is the major piece of legislation proposed by the Government in this sector, and the Government's intentions are clear. Top priority is to be given to dismantling the Housing Finance Act and replacing fair


rents with so called reasonable rents. The Government propose to create a new subsidy system to operate from 1st April, with the most help going to the building of new council houses, along with the municipalisation of land and houses, and the subsidising of the present debt, and four or five new subsidies are to be introduced.
The Secretary of State's chest expanded when he talked about the new subsidy of 66 per cent. proposed under Schedule 1, Part I of the Bill. He said that it was the highest figure ever for acquisition of land and for new buildings. But in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) the Secretary of State had to admit that the figure was based on the pooled interest rates that local authorities are paying. So if a local authority is paying 13 per cent., which is now the normal figure, and the pooled figure that the Department is prepared to accept is 10½ per cent., which would be quite normal, then the council involved in this new building would receive two-thirds of 10½ per cent., approximately 7 per cent. But 7 per cent. of the going rate of 13 per cent. is not two-thirds as might at first appear, but just over 50 per cent. What sort of incentive will this be to a council to increase the rate of building? The Minister will have time in his concluding speech to confirm that what I say is the case. It seems that what I am trying to elucidate annoys hon. Members on the Government side.
I now turn to other parts of the Bill. A time limit of three years was mentioned in the consultative document, but no such limit is mentioned in the Bill. Today the Secretary of State said that he was setting up a far-reaching inquiry. I take it that when the results of the inquiry are published, what is now being proposed will be amended or changed, otherwise is there any point in setting up the inquiry?
There is an intriguing statement in Clause 1:
In determining rents for their houses, a local authority shall have regard to the terms of their rebate scheme under section 18 of the Housing Finance Act 1972.
There was no mention of that in the consultative document, or in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum issued with the Bill. Why are hon. Members

on the Government side so coy about it? Are they not prepared to admit that there was anything good in our Act? Cannot they say openly that they accept that it is not a bad yardstick but that they are afraid of upsetting some of their Left-wing friends?
We are to move from fair rents to reasonable rents, so let us spend a little time elucidating what reasonable rents are. If that is to be the accepted yardstick, perhaps a level of rent higher than a fair rent could be seen as reasonable. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that may be so.
I find Clause 2 intriguing in view of the Government's stated intention to restore the rent fixing discretion of local authorities. It is proposed that there shall be power by order to prevent or restrict increases in public sector rents. The Government already have this authority until 1976. So why bother? One has the feeling that they may well need this order, but what happens when they enforce it? We know very well what will happen straight away. It will play havoc with the budgets of individual local authorities. And who will foot the bill?—the poor old ratepayer again. In corresponding circumstances under the 1972 Act, 80 per cent. of the loss was recouped. There is no such promise here.
I turn next to the problem of the homeless. Will the Minister confirm that there is no intention that councils should be penalised under the Bill in making provision for the homeless? As I read it, one type of authority might well find itself without a subsidy which it previously had in relation to the provision of short-term accommodation and the associated expenditure.
I confirm my party's commitment to the principle of the Housing Finance Act 1972. It is possible that it would have been amended from time to time, but I assert our commitment to the principle, despite the pathological hatred of hon. Members opposite towards it. They claim, among other things, that it was an attack on the freedom of local government because it brought in the fair rents scheme. True, under that Act local authorities are now required to charge fair rents and to provide adequate rebates for families in need—and not before time, either. Our Act did that. But let us


not forget that it is local councils themselves who play the major part in fixing fair rents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I am aware of the rent scrutiny boards and of what has been said in casting doubt on the people who have been prepared to serve on those boards, many of them in a professional capacity, many of them with a knowledge going far beyond that of elected members of councils or, indeed, Members elected to this Chamber.
The only freedoms lost with the introduction of the fair rents system under the 1972 Act were the freedom to charge rents bearing no relation whatever to the value of the property and the freedom to deny rebates to tenants in need. I see nothing, therefore, that I should apologise for from this side.
We saw the situation and took appropriate action to get rid of abuse and to concentrate help where it was needed. We stick to the view, contrary to what the Government say in this Bill, that the fair rents system was right. I must give credit to right hon. and hon. Members opposite here. They initiated it, and we extended it into the council housing field. We believe it to be the most equitable and sensible way of fixing rents in this sector. It puts all tenants, council or private, on the same basis, and it ensures through rebates that no tenant has to pay more than he or she can afford.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the rent scrutiny boards met in secret, without the tenant having the right to make representations, a right which the private tenant has before the equivalent of the scrutiny board, the rent assessment committee?

Mr. Fox: Of course I would confirm that the rent scrutiny board had the final say. The board is the final arbiter, but I do not accept the criticisms which are always levelled at these boards. I am not prepared to go into detail about their activities, although I know that hon. Members would love to have a debate on the whole matter. Are the Government saying that no Government at any time should call upon the services of any individual who has not served on or been elected at some time to a local council?
We are entitled on Second Reading to ask who wants the Bill. It is not the

homeless or the people on the growing waiting lists, and it is not those who accepted the fairness of our Act, and there were many of those—[An HON. MEMBER: "Clay Cross?"] It is that minority of party activists who have never been able to give us credit for anything in our Act, people who had no interest in the merits of our legislation. The hon. Member for Keighley took the trouble to come into my constituency, before being elected to this House, to stir up people's feelings about the Act. He got support from his friends on the trades council and supporters of the Labour Party. The people who were prepared to look objectively at the merits of the Bill could see what he was trying to do.

Mr. Cryer: The meeting I addressed in the hon. Member's constituency was attended by about 300 people representing council tenants there. Does he realise that council tenants would not dream of going to him to discuss the Housing Finance Act because they know they would not get any help from him?

Mr. Fox: Without the votes of many people who live in council houses I would not even be here. The hon. Member for Keighley has no right to suggest that I act only for constituents who live in private accommodation.
We know that a minority of people did their best to destroy that Act. That does not mean that we are not prepared to speak in favour of it now. Of course we care that money directed to these problems should be used to the best possible advantage. I warn the ratepayers that the proposals in the Bill will tip the balance even further in favour of the subsidised well-off council tenant at their expense. Look at the words "reasonable rents". One is not encouraged when one reads the underlying principle of the new legislation in paragraph 4 of the consultation paper, "Reform of Housing Finance", of June 1974. There is no attempt to define "reasonable rents". Perhaps the Minister will be able to help on that when he replies to the debate. I presume that he relies on case law. The courts have held that reasonable rents must reflect a reasonable balance between tenant and ratepayer, subject to conformity with the Government's prices policy, whatever that might be. The only way out is to increase the amount of subsidy that ratepayers must pay


towards holding down the rents of council tenants.
We say to the ratepayers, "Be warned". Perhaps when the Secretary of State said last week that he did not expect rates to be increased by as much as 100 per cent.—admittedly he said he was joking—he was considering what the Bill might do. With a rates explosion under way these proposals are a sick joke and it is folly to implement parts of the Bill, which is why we shall seek to amend it in Committee.
I ask the House to support our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill shows a total disregard for the national need. It comes after a Budget last week which was aimed at reducing subsidies. No wonder the country has difficulty in believing that the Government are serious about tackling inflation. The Bill is yet a further example of Labour's incompetence to produce a truly national housing policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) had much to say on this. The Bill illustrates the fundamental difference of approach between the two parties. The Government believe that it is best to subsidise people as perpetual council tenants. We believe it is better to do that temporarily for as many families as possible and to encourage them ultimately to become home owners. Our overriding concern is to get homes built, and the Bill does nothing of the sort.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We on the Government benches welcome the recent conversion of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and his colleagues to the sentiments expressed in the last sentence of his speech. Having spent three and a half years operating housing policy as a Government, the hon. Gentleman's party can hardly be said to have shown the success that all their words during that period might have led us to expect. I recall the then Minister for Housing and Construction saying on many occasions, particularly in the wake of the Housing Finance Act 1972, that more houses would be built as a result of that Act and other measures of the then Government. He said that at the end of the day the country would see how many

more dwellings the Conservative Government had built than the previous Labour Government had built. We waited and we warned the people, and when we returned to office last spring we inherited the most disastrous collapse in house building the country has ever seen.
We should all pay close attention at least to the possibility, and I believe the probability, that fundamental changes in the housing market have been giving out signals to politicians for a long time. Those changes will require radical reshaping of the way in which we handle all kinds of provision, not just tenanted provision such as we are mainly concerned with in the Bill but other aspects of the housing market.
It does not lie in the mouth of any Opposition spokesman to lecture us about the collapse of the housebuilding market so soon after the Conservatives left office. Perhaps in one or two years' time, when the memories of what they left behind are a little more distant, they will feel justified in lecturing us as they have tonight on the very situation they left behind, and the country may feel that they are justified. The effrontery of some ex-members of the Government who have spoken tonight is past belief. They, not the new Government, are responsible for the situation this year.
It is right that on such an occasion the debate should range rather more widely than the contents of the Bill. We shall go into detail in Committee, and when the Bill returns to the House later. I shall deal with some of the points about the situation that has developed in the past few months, before turning to a number of matters connected with the Bill.
So far there has been a negative reaction by Opposition spokesmen towards the Bill's contents and the policy behind it, as well as to other actions we have taken or are considering. With one possible exception, which I found interesting and curious, and to which I shall return. I saw no sign of any positive recommendations or ideas from the Opposition. Once or twice there were echoes of the General Election campaign. The proposed mortgage rate dropped from 9½ per cent. to 9 per cent., but there was no positive thinking.
With the one exception to which I have referred, the only suggestion seemed to


be that as many council houses as possible should be sold as rapidly as possible. That seemed to be the main burden of the Opposition's argument on housing. I know their views about rates, and I hope that I shall have time to come to them. We have many positive social reasons for disagreeing with that one and only policy that seems to have emerged from the Conservatives—the sale of as many council houses as possible, as quickly as possible and below the market value. Moreover, we see that policy as a confession that the Opposition have no ideas for managing and developing a rented housing service. They do not believe in one—that is the truth of the matter. It has become clear in this debate, in many earlier debates and in a number of official and unofficial communications emanating from the Conservative Party in recent years.
Indeed, a few years ago one publication recommended the setting up of a corporation with the remit of selling off all council houses, in lots, on the market as quickly as possible. I recall reading a notable Monday Club publication on housing. No doubt it still has the support of a number of hon. Members opposite, among them former members of the Conservative Government, including some who were Ministers at the Department of the Environment.
We, on the contrary, believe that housing for rent is a positive service, not a residual one to be got rid of or reduced to the minimum. We believe that it is a service which stands on its own merits alongside owner-occupation and other forms of tenure that we are now examining and about which we shall produce recommendations in due time—not long now, I hope. The policies of the Bill are designed to develop that public service in rented housing in the context of other provisions to be established on a bigger scale as quickly as possible alongside it.
One of the main differences between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party is that whereas the Conservatives have talked a great deal about owner-occupation and have sought—I am tempted to say "dishonestly" in political terms—to turn the debate into an argument about owner-occupation when the Bill has nothing to do with if, the Conservative Government did precious little, when disaster struck, to try to resolve the

situation, even if only marginally. On the other hand, although we ale still a long way from where we want to go, we have spent a tremendous amount of time in adopting practical measures to try to restore the situation we inherited.
We established the £500 million loan to the building societies, which played a major part in restoring the flow of funds which has resulted in more than doubling the ability to meet the demand for owner-occupation. When we took office eight months ago, lending totalled £150 million a month, and this has risen to £350 million a month, primarily because of the initiative of the Government and the backing we gave to the building societies and to prospective owner-occupiers.
Again, when we took office new houses were being bought at the rate of about 6,000 a month. Building society mortgages are now providing purchasing power for about 10,000 a month. It is still not enough, but at least instead of a decline there is an upturn.

Mr. Stainton: I question the Minister's reference to the source of the funds in building societies. Doubtless the increase was triggered by the £500 million provided by the Government, but otherwise the money is a transfer from the Stock Exchange and elsewhere to the building societies.

Mr. Freeson: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman made that intervention. He repeated virtually what I said. I said that the Government's action had triggered off negotiations with the building societies which we have maintained month by month and sometimes week by week. That is all I claim, but that is an important measure of success in the building society world. There has been help for owner-occupiers. There has been an increased activity in that direction. We shall not leave it at that. There will be further studies. We are in close consultation with the building societies and we have effective liaison machinery. A tremendous volume of analytical information is now available to the Department and the societies. That will help us in future studies upon which we shall embark. Initial steps have been taken in that direction involving the Housebuilders' Federation although we have a long way to go to develop that situation


to the fine tuning of analysis and information collection that we have established with the building society movement.
The plain fact is that effective action has been taken in the public sector. By, a variety of measures we have produced not a dramatic increase but an end to the decline in housing starts. Although by no means good enough we have achieved that in the private sector. In the public sector, in addition, we now see an upturn in building. We have a long way to go. When we came into office we inherited a White Paper on public expenditure which postulated about 95,000 new housing starts by public authorities this year. At the end of this year I expect that figure to be in the region of 130,000. That is by no means good enough, but it is a marked increase on what we inherited.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister now answer the question which his right hon. Friend promised would be answered? Why is it that in the first quarter of 1974 under the Housing Finance Act 1972 subsidies there were 36,400 council houses started, which was exactly the same figure as that achieved for the first quarter of 1971 under the Act that was introduced by Lord Greenwood of Rossendale?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman knows sufficiently well from his contact with the building industry, from statistics and from the assiduous way in which he tables Questions for Written Answer that he cannot judge a year's effort by one quarter's return. I suggest that he waits, if he does not believe what I am saying, for the cumulative figures for the whole year. He can then judge whether I am correct or whether he is correct. I have said that I expect about 130,000 housing starts by public authorities this year compared with the programmed 95,000 starts envisaged by the previous administration.
The Bill is not intended to produce a solution to the housing problem. It would be foolish for anyone to argue that it is put forward to produce such a solution. It is intended to deal with certain aspects of the housing situation. Anyone who tried to argue in such a simplistic way would be misleading the country and not contributing to a full understanding of our problems.
The Bill is a commitment to end the gross interferences in the day-to-day running of local authorities' housing programmes. It is an attempt to reshape subsidies prior to the much more major review of housing finance that we intend to set in train.
We hope that local authorities will be directed more effectively to new building and modernisation. Anyone who studies the subsidies as set out in the Bill and the statements that have been made already about them will accept that the subsidies are aimed in that direction. We cannot know the results before the measure becomes operative. We have heard a lot of talk about motivation, but I am stating our objectives. We have been criticised several times, and quite vigorously, by Opposition hon. Members for shaping the subsidy system on an interim basis so that it moves in the direction of a bricks-and-mortar subsidy. I have no shame in that. That is the very situation we have to tackle—to achieve an increase in the number of housing starts in the public sector as well as in the private sector. The subsidy system we are proposing is designed for that purpose.
Our major policy developments in this area have yet to be initiated, but I hope that the review which has been referred to on a number of occasions today and elsewhere in the past will be completed in about 12 months' time. That is not an absolute commitment. We are not aiming to have a review which takes place over a period of years. We are aiming at one which will be completed in a year or so.
It will be on that basis that we will then go forward with further, more radical changes in housing. The review will go well beyond the question of rents and subsidies, which until now have been the main burden of housing finance reviews. It will aim to cover such questions as methods of investment in housing, needs and demands and how they are calculated, analyses of the ratio and efficacy of total subsidy expenditure in relation to total capital investment in achieving housing objectives, various systems of help to people in all kinds of tenure and housing, relationship of rebates and allowances to the social security system generally and a number of other fundamental questions which go beyond the immediate issues of rents and subsidies with which we


are concerned today. A number of points made during this debate will be more relevant at that time—for example, references to the future financing by Exchequer subsidy of rent rebates and rent allowances and other such matters.
I want to deal with some of the points more particularly relevant to the Bill. I first make one observation about the question of fair rents which was dealt with to some extent by the hon. Member for Shipley and others when they came back to the theme: why do we knock out fair rents in the public sector but seek to maintain them in the private sector, as under the 1968 Rent Act? We wish to do so for the reasons we argued in great detail, point by point, during the Committee stage of the Housing Finance Act 1972.
I can sum that up by saying that in our view, as we argued in detail in Committee, the use of the term "fair rents" in the context of the 1972 Act was a dishonest and misleading term. Point by point we showed that the system set down in the 1972 Act bore no similarity to the procedures set down in the 1968 Rent Act for tenants and landlords in the private sector. It was the transference of a label meretriciously from one situation to another to try to mislead Parliament and the public as to the real nature of that Act.
I shall not go over the points argued in Committee. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity to go into some of these matters, not so extensively, in Committee in a few days' time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister talks of a change of label. What he has done in this Bill is to change from the label, "fair rent" to another label, "reasonable rent". Will he tell the House what he regards as a reasonable rent and, in particular, what he thinks it is reasonable to take from the ratepayer, often the poor ratepayer, to give to the often well-off ratepayer?

Mr. Freeson: I am a little surprised by at least part of that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman should know that in adopting the term "reasonable rents" we are returning to the position that existed prior to the Housing Finance Act 1972. The term "reasonable rents" has been hallowed by case law over two generations of housing administration. It

has been dealt with to some extent on a number of occasions this evening. If the hon. Gentleman wants this examined and probed further in Committee, I shall be glad to do so. I look forward to his being a member of that Committee.
I turn to deal with a number of points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) referred to Clause 1(2). The same point was taken up by the hon. Member for Shipley. It deals with requiring local authorities, in determining their rents, to have regard to their rent rebate schemes. This matter can be discussed in Committee, but, in effect, we are saying to local authorities that the individual circumstances of tenants may be provided for and are provided for in the rent rebate scheme rather than in fixing the general level of rents, which was not the position before the mandatory rent rebate and rent allowance scheme was introduced under the 1972 Act.
The first parliamentary Question which I asked when we went into opposition in 1970 was put to the new Minister of Housing and Local Government. I asked whether it was the Conservative Government's intention to introduce a mandatory rent rebate scheme such as that which had been left on the desk when we left office that year. There is no argument about this matter across the Floor of the House. We left papers on this subject at that time and I was a strong advocate of the introduction of such a scheme.
The hon. Member for Chelsea, by way of illustration, raised a question about a £55 cost rent in Westminster or elsewhere where the fair rent which had been fixed was £10 a week less rates, and so on. He asked what was a reasonable rent. I do not know. The whole point is that in terms of cash figures such matters are being put into the hands of the local authorities and they will depend largely on such considerations as the precise rent pooling arrangements which the local authority decides to adopt as well as the subsidy which it receives for new construction, and so on. It would not be anywhere near the £55 cost rent, but the bracket covered is dependent on so many factors which the local authority will have to examine that I cannot give a cash figure.

Mr. Scott: In other words, we are moving from a system in which people


of similar means in similar accommodation in different local authorities will pay broadly similar rents, which will be rebated and have allowances set against them, to a system which will be totally capricious and depend on the state of the local authority's housing revenue account?

Mr. Freeson: That is not so. I suggest that before the hon. Gentleman again makes that statement about common rent levels round the country for similar properties he checks the facts. The so-called fair rent system under the Housing Finance Act 1972 has not established the rational pattern which the hon. Gentleman has suggested in the House and on the radio and elsewhere has been achieved.
The hon. Member for Shipley asked about the £692 million given in a Written Answer last Friday as being the amount of subsidies for the present year, 1974, compared with the £700 million given in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill for next year. The two figures are not comparable. The first figure, £692 million, includes rent rebates; the latter figure does not. The figure for this year which is comparable with the £700 million figure is £525 million, namely, the basic element, as it will be in the Bill, provided for in future. The Financial Memorandum makes this clear.
I turn to the serious points raised chiefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and, to a lesser degree, by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I have been seriously concerned with the kind of papers which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington has been sending to me about exceptionally high rent increases in his constituency. I can give no undertaking tonight, but, as I said in the House last Wednesday in reply to a question, we are examining the matter very carefully. I hope, but I cannot guarantee, that it will be practicable to produce an answer to the problem. We are trying to treat the matter as thoughtfully as possible. I cannot take it further than that this evening.
Several hon. Members touched on the question of subsidy levels. They said that 66 per cent. on loan charges was not high enough. Some said that the 33 per cent. subsidy on the refinancing of old

debts—the supplementary element in the subsidy—was not high enough. We shall examine that in greater detail in Committee. We have discussed the levels fully with the local authority associations. Naturally, they want more, but the proposals in the Bill are broadly acceptable. Notional housing revenue accounts that have been put to us from various local authorities showing that they will be worse off in certain respects have been shown on analysis to be based upon a misunderstanding of the figures that will be produced.
I have discussed this individually with some local authorities, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East had in mind. We shall examine it further in Committee. We are dealing mainly with the money available to help with new building. We shall use that money as effectively as we can to achieve that objective.
If there are points that I have not dealt with satisfactorily during the debate, we shall do our best to deal with them as fully as possible in Committee. If hon. Members who are not members of the Committee wish to raise other matters, I shall deal with them as best I can by correspondence. We intend to circulate a note of guidance to members of the Committee when they are appointed to clarify points that might otherwise be obscure because of the legal terminology of the Bill. I hope that we shall get out these notes before the Committee sits next week or, if not by then, as soon as possible thereafter.
The Conservative Opposition, who have raised objections to the Bill and will vote against it, went on record in the Tory election manifesto as follows:
We will continue the freeze on rents until the end of the year. When we have examined the reports of the Rent Scrutiny Boards, we will consider how increases can gradually be implemented in the light of our policies for fighting inflation.
Not one Opposition Member has referred to that manifesto commitment, presumably to introduce legislation to phase gradually future rent increases. The manifesto did not specify the private or public sector, and we must assume that it referred to rents in general. If that view were argued in the General Election campaign a few weeks ago, why has no reference been made to it in today's


debate? Why have not the Opposition gone on record as claiming that they wish to support our proposals for doing precisely what they told the public they would do if they won the election? That is another example of playing politics in General Election terms, and continuing to play politics in the House.
We are concerned with housing policy and with constructive proposals. We shall

continue to receive ideas from any quarter, either from inside the House or elsewhere, to achieve that objective, but we have had precious little help on that score from the Tory Opposition.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 315.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Alison, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John


Amery, Rt Hn Julian
Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hn H. (Spelthorne)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
MacGregor, John


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hn M. (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Benyon, W. R.
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Goodlad, A.
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Gow, I. (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)
Maude, Angus


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brotherton, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hn Miss
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
Moore, John (Croydon C.)


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Sir Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northants)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth S)
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Peter (Chester)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Cockcroft, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley


Corrie, John
Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick (Redbr)
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Drayson, Burnaby
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Elliott, Sir William
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hn Sir D. (Hunts)


Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, I.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter (S.E. Derbyshire)




Royle, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stainton Keith
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John


Scott, Nicholas
Stanley, John
Walder David (Clitheroe)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)
Walker Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Shelton, William (Lambeth, St)
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Shepherd, C.
Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, R. (Croydon N.W.)
Wells, John


Sims, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow, C)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry (Weston-s-Mare)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple-Morris, P.
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon M.
Young, Sir George (Ealing)


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.



Spence, John
Trotter, Neville
TELLERS THE FOR AYES:


Spicer, James (W Dorset)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Adam Butler and Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Anderson, Donald
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, Rt. Hon Sir A. (L'pool)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood)
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bates, Alf
Edelman, Maurice
Janner, Greville


Bean, Robert E.
Edge, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport North)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (B'ham St)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Bishop, Edward
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (Kingston W)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Ioan L. (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Pr)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast)
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)
Flannery, Martin
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Buchanan, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)
Ford, Ben T.
Lamborn, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Forrester, John
Lamond, James


Campbell, Ian
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John (Lambeth N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, John


Carmichael, Neil
Freud, Clement
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Carter Ray
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lever, Rt Hn Harold


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garret, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus


Clemiston, Ivor
Gilbert, Dr John
Litterick, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bruce
Luard, Euan


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Concannon, J. D.
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W.)


Conlan, Bernard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Cook, Robin F. (Edin, C.)
Grocott, Bryan
McCartney, Hugh


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McElhone, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wands Toot)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacFarquhar, R.


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, M)
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cronin, John
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hatton, Frank
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Magee, Bryan


Davidson, Arthur
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mahon, Simon


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hooley, Frank
Marks, Ken


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn
Marquand, David


Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C)
Horam, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)







Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)


Meacher, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tierney, Sydney


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, William (Teesside)
Tomlinson, John


Mikardo, Ian
Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Tuck, Raphael


Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Rose, Paul B.
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley


Moonman, Eric
Ryman, John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sedgemore, B.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Selby, Harry
Ward, Michael


Moyle, Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilf)
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashon-u-Lyne)
Watkinson, John


Murray, Ronald King
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)
Weitzman, David


Noble, Mike
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ogden, Eric
Silkln, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk)
White, James (Glasgow P)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orme, Rt Hn Stanley
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea)


Ovenden, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Havering)


Owen, Dr David
Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hn Mrs Shirley (Hertford)


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Parker, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith F)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Penhaligon, David
Stonehouse, Rt Hn John
Woof, Robert


Perry, Ernest
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Phipps, Dr Coin
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Prescott, John
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, Christopher (Lewisham W.)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Miss B. Boothroyd and Mr. James A. Dunn.


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal certain provisions of the Housing Finance Act 1972, to make further provision as to rents, and to introduce new housing subsidies for local authorities and new town corporations and abolish certain existing subsidies, it is expedient to authorised pay-

ments out of money provided by Parliament as follows:—

(a) housing subsidy under the said Act for local authorities and new town corporations, consisting of five elements, namely—

(i) a basic element;
(ii) a new capital costs element of an amount determined in accordance with the said Act as a percentage (namely 66 per cent. or another percentage specified by the order) of reckonable expenditure falling to be debited to the Housing Revenue Account of a local authority or the housing account of a new town corporation;
(iii) a supplementary financing element, for local authorities only, of an amount determined, in accordance with the said Act, as a percentage (namely 33 per cent. or another percentage specified by order) of an excess of loan charges falling to be debited to the Housing Revenue Account;
(iv) a special element for the year 1975–76; and
(v) a high costs element, for subsequent years;
(b) modified rent rebate subsidy for local authorities and new town corporations, of an amount equal to 75 per cent. of their standard amount of rent rebates (as defined by section 20(8) of the Housing Finance Act 1972;


(c) expanding towns subsidy for the councils of receiving districts, as defined by section 1(2) of the Town Development Act 1952;
(d) transitional town development subsidy for local authorities;
(e) subsidy for housing associations performing certain housing functions of local authorities;

(f) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State; and
(g) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in payments out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (SOCIAL SECURITY)

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 1268), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July 1974 in the last Parliament be approved.
The Ulster Workers' Council—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to continue their conversations not do so in the Chamber but withdraw?

Mr. Moyle: The Ulster Workers' Council stoppage of last May had an effect on the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland which was quite noticeable. Some 200,000 persons made claims on the Department because of the circumstances of the stoppage. Hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain who want some indication of the magnitude of those claims ought to think of claims by about 8 million people in this island and at the same time the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services being affected by the general circumstances of the stoppage and therefore unable to get to work because of the withdrawal of public transport, various unofficial road blocks and, in some cases, intimidation.
The Northern Ireland Executive, which had the responsibility for transferred services such as those of the Department of Health and Social Services, found by the time the stoppage was entering its second week—about 21st May—that it was impossible to continue with the normal administrative machinery for paying unemployment, sickness and supplementary benefits.
Following this conclusion, the head of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland made an urgent request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make regulations under the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926, as amended by the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act (Northern

Ireland) 1964, to enable the Department to suspend at its discretion normal administrative procedures for those benefits and to introduce an emergency benefit scheme should it wish. The exercise of these powers is excepted by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and can be activated only by my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend supported the Executive's conclusion and made the emergency regulations. Later on the same day—21st May—the head of the Department of Health and Social Services made a statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly explaining why he had decided to activate the emergency benefit scheme. He referred also to his anxieties about a number of people receiving social security benefits who might not be able to obtain them in view of the prevailing circumstances, for example, pensioners who were not directly involved in the stoppage.
In the difficult circumstances then prevailing, it seemed to the Executive that there was no alternative but to abandon almost all the normal safeguards against abuse and to base the emergency scheme on a drastically simplified test of eligibility. Those who qualified under this test received a standard rate of benefit, which was the standard rate of unemployment benefit plus the appropriate additions for dependants. In the considered view of everybody concerned, in no other way could serious hardship have been prevented for many thousands of people who were not in any way actively involved in the troubles that caused the stoppage.
It was not, I think, a normal industrial dispute. That is the important thing to grasp, and that is why we tend to refer to it as a stoppage. It was not easy to differentiate between people who were actively engaged in ceasing work with a view to bringing pressure to bear and, for example, people who were not working because they were intimidated and those who were not working because they were unable to get to work.
At the time that the order was made, electrical supplies were restricted to hospitals and essential services, with only brief periods for domestic use; public transport had stopped; petrol supplies


were extremely difficult to obtain; in many cases postal services were stretched; in most areas the telephone service was erratic; office staff of most employers were not at work; and the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services were in many cases unable to reach their own offices. Some people were unable to get to work, and some people who got to their place of work were unable to work because the power supplies upon which they were dependent were not flowing.
Because of the restricted nature of the powers conferred by the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926, the regulations could not include provision to extinguish the right to normal benefits for periods for which emergency benefit was paid. This is an important fact. The head of the Department, with the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive, intended to introduce a measure subsequently in terms of the order before the House this evening to cover this aspect and certain other matters arising out of the emergency benefit scheme. The Executive fell before this could be done, and it has been left to the present Government to put this order before the House and to carry into operation the intention of the Executive.
Articles 1 and 2 do not need much comment. They cover the commencing date of the order and its interpretation.
The important article is Article 3. This is required because persons who became sick or unemployed during the stoppage and were paid emergency benefit made claims on forms which were actually claim forms for normal benefits. These claims are still outstanding and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland is under a duty to submit them to the statutory adjudicating authorities. If it did so, the claims would very likely be admitted, and the people concerned would receive a second payment in respect of the one period, which we regard as inequitable. As a matter of equity this should not be allowed to take place. The article provides, in effect, therefore, that there is to be no title to normal benefits for any period for which emergency benefit was paid and no duty to submit claims to the statutory adjudicating authorities for decision.
Article 4 provides for the recoupment to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund of the amount expended in paying emergency benefit instead of unemployment or sickness benefit. This is the estimated sum which would have been paid out of the insurance fund if emergency benefit had not been paid. In other words, the difference between what would have been paid if it had been possible to effect the normal payments under the national insurance scheme and the actual amounts paid out can be recovered from the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund and paid into the Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland, which was the source of the emergency payments.
The total sum for the payments made to the 200,000 claimants during the course of the stoppage is about £5 million. We are fairly confident that the final figure will be of about that sum, but I should not like to be held to a precise figure in detail. The actual figure which will be paid over from the Department of Health and Social Services has to be agreed with the Department of Finance, and no figure has as yet been agreed. But, as I said, it is estimated that it will be about £5 million on which the calculation will be based.
Finally, Article 5 enables the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to make supplementary and transitional provisions by subordinate orders. The main purposes of these orders will be to ensure that contribution credits should be awarded for periods for which emergency benefit was paid and, secondly, to ensure that any overpayments of emergency benefit which took place due to misrepresentation or non-disclosure can be recovered. Obviously, compared with the national insurance payments, some people received more than they should have done under the emergency payments scheme and some people received less. Those sort of figures will not be recouped unless it is shown that the overpayments were made due to misrepresentation or to nondisclosure, but if the person acted in good faith, there will be no recoupment.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has my hon. Friend any indication of the amount which may


have been obtained through misrepresentation, that is, by people alleging that they were intimidated when they were not, and people who said that they were on strike when they were not on strike?

Mr. Moyle: I cannot give a precise figure, but we have the feeling that the amounts at stake were not large. Five million pounds were paid out to roughly 200,000 claimants, which worked out at about £25 per head, or about £12 per claimant per week. Given those figures, it is highly unlikely that there was substantial abuse, although I am quite prepared to concede that life was easier for the people so inclined at the time and I am sure that there were one or two unscrupulous people even in the Province of Northern Ireland who took advantage of the situation. But we do not think that the figures were particularly high in relation to the situation pertaining.
Briefly, the order is designed to prevent duplicate payments of social security benefits to persons who have already obtained emergency benefit to ensure that the costs of paying emergency benefit fall in their proper place, and to provide for certain consequential matters.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments because I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to raise particular points. I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I apologise if he has already answered these points, because I did not hear him in the hubbub.
Has he any idea how many unjustified claims were made? Can he give an estimate of the figure? Can he also clear up a matter that was raised in the summer? There was an allegation in the Sunday Telegraph that there had been a considerable racket going on. The headline was:
£8 million aid racket in Ulster.
That does not tally with the Minister's figure of £5 million. Can he assure the House—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that we are discussing Order No. 1268? We thought that you had referred to Order No. 1267.

Mr. Speaker: This discussion is limited to Order No. 1267.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is Order No. 1268 that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about?

Mr. Speaker: I must say that perhaps I was not paying attention to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I ought to have been, but I was engaged on another matter, but if the right hon. Gentleman was talking on Order No. 1268, he was out of order.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister directed his remarks entirely to Order No. 1268, not Order No. 1267, and if I had been directing my remarks to Order No. 1267 I should have been at cross-purposes with the Minister.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think there has been a mistake about the numbering of the orders. The order relating to social security is, in fact, No. 1268. Was that the one that the Minister moved?

Mr. Moyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I moved Order No. 1268, which is the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: This has been described to me as a case of wrong identification. It would surely be better to try to make progress and regard Order No. 1268 as having been moved, and come to the other order afterwards.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman winds up the debate in relation to Order No. 1268 he would make some remarks about the allegations that I mentioned, and I hope that he will be able to refute them satisfactorily.

Mr. Speaker: To conclude on the misunderstanding which has arisen, if I may, I must point out that it is the responsibility of the Government to see that


the numbers are right when orders are set down on the Order Paper.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I absolve you entirely of any iniquity, Mr. Speaker. I regard it as the responsibility of the English, in trying to perpetrate an Irish situation in numbering correct orders wrongly.
I turn then to the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974. I believe that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) did not hear amid the hubbub—I can only assume that I missed the hubbub—the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister gave on the question of the number of faulty claims or misrepresentations which may have been made. But, as I understand the situation, there are people in Northern Ireland who have stated that they will not go on strike again unless Paddy Devlin is Minister of Health.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman asked how much, and I asked how many.

Mr. McNamara: If we divide by 12 into how much, we can, I think, work out how many from the figure which my hon. Friend gave.
There are some important points to be raised in relation to this dispute. Nobody objects to people receiving social security benefit when they are prevented from going to work or when they become unemployed as a result of others withdrawing their labour. Certainly none of us on this side would object to that. But we are concerned about tales and rumours, which my hon. Friend has gone some way to knock down, about a number of people who were spuriously intimidated from going to work but who in fact were not so intimidated but took advantage of Mr. Paddy Devlin's hospitality and generosity to try to obtain both their regular wages and social security benefit. It would be interesting to know what sort of inquiry my hon. Friend's Department is making through the PAYE system to determine how many people are involved.
On the other hand, there were a good many people who were considerably embarrassed financially and put to ex-

pense as a result of the stoppage, namely, those self-employed who wished to take no part in the stoppage, who supported the Executive and Her Majesty's Government in their actions, but who were prevented, for example, from getting their produce to market because of road blocks or other intimidation, which resulted in perishable crops and other items being lost or ruined, and who received no compensation at all because they were not in the directly employed category. I feel that my hon. Friend should pay attention to those who suffered loss as a consequence in that way.
There are, however, other questions concerning social security and, indeed, the security of the whole Province which follow from the consequences of the emergency created by the UWC strike. The whole situation in the Province has deteriorated considerably since that event, and it will not be settled by the calling of the Convention elections and a date being given for them.
Many people in the minority community feel more insecure now than ever before as a consequence of what appears to many to be the drift in Her Majesty's Government policy away from the principles which were outlined both when the Conservative Party was in power and at the time of the White Paper on Convention elections. There seems now to be an appeal not to what is right but to what the majority in Northern Ireland at the moment seem to be demanding.
It is significant that it is from these benches rather than from the Opposition benches that demands are coming for a debate on the Northern Ireland situation, save on particular circumstances or events, and it is to be regretted that only in a debate of this kind are we able to raise matters which follow from the consequences of the emergency of the UWC strike, with which, in part, this order deals.
One is concerned, in particular, about the vacuum in politics at this time in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible within the order on this motion to discuss the present political situation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): No, it is not.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realise that your position here is far more elevated than that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but my right hon. Friend said that we should be able to have a short debate on the Northern Ireland situation arising from these orders. In addition, I am discussing and am concerned with the consequences of the emergency and I suggest that social security policy deals with the consequences of various events which are likely to flow from that emergency. It is relevant surely to consider the precedents which the order is likely to set. For example, what is to happen if the widely mooted stoppage of work, which may still take place, over the conditions of the Loyalist prisoners in Long Kesh were to occur? Would the same provisions arise then as are arising now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should make it clear that the scope of the debate is fairly narrowly confined. It should be limited to whether there should be payment of double benefit for the relevant period. It would seem to be beyond the scope of the instrument to discuss the workers' strike in general. That would make it rather difficult for the hon. Gentleman to stray very far from the order itself.

Mr. McNamara: Of course I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for you and I understand the wariness and chariness of the 10 United Ulster Unionists who object to the widening of the debate in spite of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said.
I think that I would be in order to express concern about the precedent that is set in this case. Say, for example, that the sectarian murders reached such a pitch that people were not prepared to go to work outside what they regarded as safe areas, that people were not prepared to cross Belfast from a Loyalist or allegedly Republican area to another area because they were afraid for their lives. In those circumstances would another similar order be brought before the House? Would it be in order to raise that matter? Would it be in order to ask, in view of the

drift of events in Northern Ireland, the vacuum that seems to exist, and the threats of future stoppages, whether we are likely to see a similar order to this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may pose a question, but he must not develop the argument on a hypothetical situation.

Mr. McNamara: I would never dream of developing an argument on a hypothetical situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been reports of another such strike. It is the duty of the Government to try to prevent a similar situation arising. It is their duty also to ensure that these paramilitary forces, which intimidated people and prevented them from going to work, and which led to the leader of the TUC, Mr. Len Murray, trying to lead a march back to work in difficult circumstances, should not succeed. In that case we should not need another such order.
We must accept the order, but we should not permit a recurrence of the last situation. We must ensure that the drift in Government policy ceases. Before the Convention elections my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have talks with the various groups in Northern Ireland to see whether a dialogue can begin. I realise that there are various bodies, mostly represented on the Opposition benches, that would object and would not perhaps like to show their hand until after any Convention elections are held. But there is still need for us to have a proper move by the Government.
We should pay particular attention to self-employed people, such as farmers, who have not benefited from the magnanimity of Mr. Paddy Devlin's original decision—

Mr. Michael Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we on this side of the House believe in the ballot box and not the bomb, and that that is the way in which to conduct one's affairs, in Ulster or anywhere else?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. McNamara: I, too, believe in the ballot box and not in the bomb, but I believe that the responsibilities of a


majority are perhaps even greater than the responsibilities of a minority, and that if there had not been an abuse of majority power we should not have the present situation. If hon. Members on the Opposition benches had listened to the arguments advanced from the Labour benches before the terrible troubles broke out, the troubles would not be as they are today. The hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the House long, would do well to read reports of the debates long before the troubles started, and he would realise the seriousness with which we regarded the situation then and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have the benefit of the statement the Lord President made on 14th November, when he said:
There will of course, be a short debate next week.
This confines the matter very much to a short debate. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
That is why we are discussing the possibility of establishing a number of Northern Ireland committees, including a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, where Northern Ireland matters can be discussed much more frequently than we could find time for in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 592–6.]
The hon. Gentleman should be aware of that, because it has a bearing on the argument he is developing.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was to be a short debate, not that it was not to be a wide debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The very thing that we cannot do is to have a wide debate, within the terms of the order. The debate must be narrowly confined.

Mr. McNamara: If you rule that the word "narrow" also means "short", I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not how I understood what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) were concerned that we were not to have any full-scale debates on Northern Ireland. We were under the impression that what my right hon. Friend said then meant that this debate would be short in time

—limited to one and a half hours on each order—but not in scope.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The ruling on the scope of the debate rests with the Chair, and I rule that it is very narrow on this order.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you first answered the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South, I was under the impression that all my argument had been related to the terms of the order—the circumstances that had caused the order to arise, and how we are to prevent a similar order from having to come before the House. I was trying to suggest that if we are to prevent similar orders, there is a need for more determined action by the Government to try to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, and perhaps some Government initiatives before the Convention elections. I think in particular of the calling together of the various parties to see whether a dialogue can be established. Otherwise, the initiatives are being left not with elected representatives but with gunmen, which, after what the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said, I am sure no hon. Member would want to see.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is right, it would be possible to develop a general debate on any order. This is not so. The order is very narrow and must be narrowly confined. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would observe my ruling.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to argue that one should seek to widen the debate, following your ruling that "short" means "narrow".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, I am sure with the best intentions in the world. The statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not specifically concerned with the matter which we are discussing tonight. There are two entirely different matters to be dealt with. The Chair has ruled tonight that this particular order is very narrowly confined and we must stick to that ruling.

Mr. McNamara: Again I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I


was seeking to argue, purely and simply on the basis of your ruling, that we have before the House an order dealing with the consequences of the emergency in Northern Ireland, namely the payment in certain circumstances of social security benefits. But the order creates a somewhat difficult precedent, and I believe that in the interests of good order and good government, both in Northern Ireland and in Her Majesty's other dominions, we should seek to avoid this type of order in future. I regard the order as a bad precedent. We must see how we can avoid this drain on public funds in the future.
I wish to refer to the possibility of a double payment involved in the convolutions of having to go through the National Insurance Fund (Northern Ireland) and of that fund having to repay the money to the Consolidated Fund (Northern Ireland). If we are to avoid similar stoppages, if we are to prevent a drift into anarchy in Northern Ireland before the Convention elections and the possibility of similar orders having to be passed again, there will have to be some sort of political action.
I realise that the power of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers is limited in this respect, but in that limited situation they should try to seize the initiative and seek to call together the various parties to see what common ground exists before a similar situation is allowed to arise. If we were to take such action, then we could pass the order in the hope that it would pass into limbo and be lost for ever. But if some action is not taken by my right hon. Friend, although we may pass the order tonight to honour the words of Mr. Paddy Devlin, I am afraid that we may find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office may find himself in the same difficult situation in the future. I am sure that nobody in the House would wish to see him placed in such a position. Therefore, I hope that the initiative will be taken from the gunmen by the politicians and that positive action will be put in hand before the Convention elections.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: When we realise that this is a wide order—

Mr. McNamara: Narrow order.

Mr. Carson: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) must leave it to the Chair to keep order.

Mr. Carson: While agreeing that this is a wide order, we must remember that it is being debated against a background of sectarian murder. I suggest that the House is prepared to sit all night if the matter is to be properly debated.
Although one realises that there is a need for some sort of order, we are not convinced that this type of emergency order is what is required. We certainly do not require the ill-informed panic measures taken by the former Head of Health and Social Services which landed us in an administrative bog. We have not yet recovered from these measures. There are wide-ranging powers already available. The National Insurance Measures (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1974 have unlimited powers. Article 5(1) of the order reads:
An order under paragraph (1) may be made so as to take effect from a date before the making thereof, whether before or after the commencement of this Order.
There are some questions that I wish to hear answered. What is the total number of measures under the National Insurance Measures (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1974 that could possibly be affected under Article 5(1) of the order? What is the total number of provisions under the Supplementary Benefits Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1973 which could possibly be modified under Article 5(1)? Could supplementary benefits be reduced to a mere token payment under the order? Could the emergency payment be less than that due to the person concerned under the normal law? Could the emergency payment be more than that due to the person concerned under the normal law? How do industrial injury benefits stand under the order?
This order is not for the past but for the future. I am not convinced that it meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is clear from what has been said so far that there is a need for a full-dress debate on Northern Ireland. In discussing Northern Ireland we cannot discuss these orders


in isolation. In view of the unsure political situation, the first opportunity should be taken to let the House know the full effects of what has transpired in Northern Ireland since the Ulster Workers' Council strike which led to the orders coming before the House. I recognise that there may be hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on the Conservative benches who do not want a full debate on Northern Ireland now.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Rubbish.

Mr. Fitt: I hope that my last remark is not true. I believe that we should have a full debate on Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and who sit on the Opposition benches have made it clear that they do not want a political discussion at this stage. They hope that they will be able to bring about a political discussion to their own advantage after the Convention elections have taken place.
I was a member of the Northern Ireland Executive at the time of the strike and I know very well the circumstances in which the order was promulgated. The Minister has indicated the serious situation in which people were refraining from going to their employment. People were being intimidated from going to work and many people who were not involved in the strike decision suffered grievously because of the effect of the Ulster Workers' Council strike.
The then Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Executive, my colleague Mr. Paddy Devlin, after representations had been made to him by many of his constituents, and from many other defenceless people in Northern Ireland who were finding it difficult to obtain their ordinary benefits under the National Insurance Scheme, took action. Many civil servants employed by the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland were not able to come to work—although I query whether they were prevented from coming to work or did not want to. It became obvious, however, that great hardship would be inflicted on a defenceless community in Northern Ireland unless some emergency measures were taken.

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is talking about or are we talking about the order?

Mr. Fitt: I am not sure where this fellow represents but he obviously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is talking about the order.

Mr. Fitt: I am not sure where this fellow has arrived from but he certainly does not understand what we are talking about this evening.
In the circumstances I have described, it was evident that hardship would be inflicted on a defenceless population in Northern Ireland. The then Minister of Health took these emergency measures. He understood at the time, as did every member of the Executive, that there would be unscruplous people in Northern Ireland who would take advantage of this order. We had to weigh that in the balance. Were we not to introduce the order, many people would have been gravely affected. If we did introduce it, some would abuse it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Which order?

Mr. Fitt: The order moved by Mr. Paddy Devlin dealing with emergency payments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are not debating that.

Mr. Fitt: We are debating the payments made—

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make my ruling quite clear. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is in order in discussing the background to this order.

Mr. Fitt: I am not sure whether these people are deaf or blind, but it says:
The Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order".
We are discussing what took place following the emergency in Northern Ireland in May of this year. There may be some people who are not aware that there was an emergency in Northern Ireland this year. It is because of that that some of them are here.
We recognised that there would be abuse of the order. I do not fully accept the total figure of £5 million given to the House by the Minister tonight. I have heard from certain sources that the figure was approaching £9 million. I notice that the Minister did not say that it was £5 million. He went round the figure, saying that from the information he had received, given £4 million here and there, that was the figure.
Some hon. Members should not seek to condemn the order because many of their political supporters abused it. That led to the downfall of the Northern Ireland Executive. I am not sure whether, at this late stage, the Minister could initiate inquiries into the abuses which took place. It is freely recognised in Northern Ireland that many of those who drew benefits available under the order were also receiving pay from their employers. Many people recognise that employers also were intimidated at that time.
No one can condemn the action which was taken by the then Minister. He was trying to prevent great hardship. But by the same token many lessons can be learned from what happened at that time. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not particularly anxious to condemn the legislation which made this emergency order possible. Perhaps he is now living with the harsh realities and facts of life in Northern Ireland. They are completely different from the conditions which he formerly dealt with in Wolverhampton. On the Budget he did not avail himself of the opportunity to vote against the £10 million refund to the trade unions. That would seem to be contrary to the position adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in the past. Perhaps he is now being influenced, to his benefit, by the Members from Northern Ireland who represent working-class constituencies.
Many of my hon. Friends will not want a lengthy discussion to take place on this order. They feel that any attempt to decrease or to stop the benefits of trade unionists or working-class people is an attack on the trade union and labour movement. But the strike which took place in Northern Ireland was not the type of strike which is known in this country. It was not about conditions of

employment or about wages. It was a clear political strike which was designed to bring about the downfall of the Government in Northern Ireland. A clear distinction must be made between strikes which take place in this country and the strike which took place there.
It is interesting that only yesterday and the day before, the same class of workers in the power stations in Northern Ireland went on strike for higher wages and better conditions. From what we have read in the Press, it would seem that the Army used helicopters to ferry in materials and support in the power stations, which it failed to do in May this year. Therefore, it is clear that the Northern Ireland authorities—it was under a Labour administration—took action during the power workers' strike which has taken place in the past two or three days which they—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the debate. The scope of the debate is narrowly confined. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would not refer to current activities. We are discussing an order and the purpose for which it has been introduced.

Mr. Fitt: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have gone a little wide, but I wished to put on record the difference between the attitude which prevailed in May and the present attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has said that a precedent has been set. Will there again be a repeat of the order which was made which has been justified and consolidated by the Government? If there is to be another political strike, will the present Government take the same view as they are taking on this order? Will they again allow themselves to be intimidated into paying massive sums of taxpayers' money to enable people who are opposed to the Government to bring about the downfall of that Government? That is the most important question which must be asked on this order.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to initiate further inquiries in Northern Ireland to find out the people who were in receipt of payment from their employers and also received the emergency benefits which were then payable.

11.5 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will give me the leniency you have accorded to other hon. Members to answer some of the charges that have been made about the Ulster Workers' Council strike and the matters relevant to the order.
As the Minister said, the order is the carrying forward of a measure that was to go before the Northern Ireland Assembly to provide machinery to deal with a future situation similar to that which occurred during the constitutional stoppage in Northern Ireland. I understand that during the constitutional stoppage payments were made under the Emergency (Payment of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) which were made through proclamation by the Secretary of State. What we are discussing tonight—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: —is this further order to set up machinery so that the measure proposed in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be put through this House as an order and become law.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Time is very brief, and I must give the Minister time to reply.
In the election to this House the people of Northern Ireland stated through the ballot box their attitude both to the Sunningdale Agreement and to the Executive which brought in the original order. The ballot box spoke loud and votes were cast for the democratic system.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) raised with me the question of the ballot box majorities, you immediately ruled him out of order. I accepted your ruling and did not continue with that part of my argument. I did not even finish my sentence, which was a beautiful one—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will say. He had a fairly good run for his money. I agree that we are getting very close to being out of order. I have been fairly indulgent. I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not try me too far and will remember that the debate is fairly narrowly confined.

Mr. Brotherton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I raised the original point of order I did not mean to glory in the election of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I will not try to utter beautiful sentences but will deal with the facts of life in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland expressed themselves in the democratic process—

Mr. Fitt: When?

Rev. Ian Paisley: In February last. They stated how they stood. What is more, a petition which dealt with the Executive was presented to this House. When the democratic process was rejected by the House, when hon. Members refused to listen to the voice of democracy expressed under the rules of the House, the stoppage took place. I know that it is unpalatable to hon. Members opposite to have the facts presented to them tonight.

Mr. Fitt: rose—

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is unpalatable but that we were not allowed to debate these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I warned the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I gave him a certain amount of latitude, as I did to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), but I suggest that he now confines himself to the order.

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the great interest aroused in the debate, can we now add to it the hour which has been allotted to the next order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is totally untrue to suggest that hon. Members on this side of the House who are elected from Northern Irelnd do not wish to discuss Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: We have not said that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It has been said by hon. Members opposite that there seems to be a reluctance on our part to engage in a debate. The House should be reminded that representations have been made by the United Ulster Unionists for an immediate debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal to the people of Northern Ireland tonight that we are forced under this type of debate to deal with matters of urgent importance in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for the Chair. We must confine ourselves to the order under discussion, whatever the hon. Member for Antrim, North may feel within his heart.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is very difficult for me, speaking in this debate, not to trespass on territory which has already been trod by hon. Members opposite. All I am trying to do is simply to put the case from our point of view.
But I come now to the terms of the order. Can the Minister tell us the number of benefits that were paid to people living in areas which are Republican or Nationalist? How many people in that end of Belfast represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—I am talking about the Falls Road and Andersonstown area—claimed these benefits? The UWC was not in operation in that area. It is a fact that benefits were claimed generally all over the Province of Northern Ireland.
Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether the £5 million he mentioned is the exact or near-exact sum, or whether the sum is really the £9 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West? Could he also tell us whether, in the future, the same procedure will take place under the terms of the order? Will the effect of this order come into being when a declaration of emergency is made under the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926? If that Act is used and a declaration of emergency is made, will it be subject to discussion in this House? Has the Secretary of State absolute power to declare an emergency without any action from this House or any submission to this House? I understand that on this side of the water an emergency must be declared

in this House and that hon. Members have an opportunity to comment upon it.
In the course of his opening remarks, some of which we found difficult to hear because of the commotion, the Minister said that it would be at the discretion of the Department. Will he elaborate on that and tell us the Department concerned? Is it the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland or the Health and Social Services Department in Northern Ireland?
I believe that the time has come for the people of Northern Ireland to have an opportunity once again in the democratic process of electing their constitutional Convention which this House decided upon, and then the politicians of Ulster, elected with a mandate from the people, will be able to speak one to another.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I do not know how many minutes are left before the debate must end, and I appreciate that the Minister must reply, but I want briefly to pay a tribute, which has not yet been paid, to the officials in the local offices who met this emergency situation and dealt with it admirably. The thanks of this House should go to them for carrying out an admirable job.
I agree with the purpose of the order, which is to debit the National Insurance Fund with the cost of the emergency benefits. When the payment has been made into the Consolidated Fund and the accounts are published, we shall see the true cost of the emergency benefits. Publication of these figures will give the lie to the scaremongers, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who started the rent and rate strike in Northern Ireland and other disorders on the streets and who have talked in terms of £9 million. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) quoted from the Sunday Telegraph. He spoke of "a considerable racket" and put the cost to the taxpayer at £8 million. The Minister referred to a figure of £5 million, and that figure is probably closer to the truth. It may be that it is too much.
I think the Minister will agree that there are about 30,000 persons who would have been getting unemployment or sickness benefits in any event during the


strike, regardless of whether it had occurred. At the height of the strike those 30,000 people would have obtained benefit, so this figure must be deducted from the 200,000 unemployed, which means that the additional cost to the National Insurance Fund will be equivalent to the cost of benefits for only 170,000.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I am afraid that a large area of this debate consists of rather shifting sands, and I had better stay clear of them in case I am ruled out of order. I shall confine my remarks to the hard substance which has been mentioned.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) asked how much had been paid in unjustified claims, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked how many faulty claims had been paid out. At this stage, I am afraid that we are unable to give precise figures of either amount or numbers. To try to assuage some of the concern which has been expressed, however, I might say that investigations are going on to ascertain the exact sums of money and the number of claims involved.
The amount of money paid out in emergency benefits is £5 million. Obviously it would be remarkable if it were precisely £5 million, but that is the figure upon which this House should work. I gather, for example, that the present assessment is £4·9 million, but some claims have still to be established. Therefore, references to £8 million, as contained in the Sunday Telegraph article, are misleading and ought not to be propagated.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that these matters will become clear when the accounts are published. I should like to make a favourable reference to the hon. Gentleman, because he was the only Member who took the trouble to praise the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services for the hard work they put in during the course of the Ulster workers' stoppage which resulted in the payment of these large sums of money and relieved a considerable number of people in Northern Ireland from great distress. I thank him very much for having done that.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that my hon. Friend would also wish to praise Mr. Faulkner and his Ministers for their stand on this matter. It was a very difficult situation in which to give instructions to the Department.

Mr. Moyle: I would have made a strong point of that, but I did not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I gather that he is not easily embarrassed. Therefore, I will endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) asked a number of detailed questions which I will proceed to answer. In case the House is lost in admiration at my answers to these detailed questions, I should explain that the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice before the debate that he would be putting them.
Questions 1 and 2 can be answered by saying that only one regulation has been made under this power and that no further regulations are likely to be made. The regulation provided for crediting contributions during the emergency and recovering money wrongly paid.
The answer to question 3 is "No". The Emergency Payment of Benefit Regulations provided for a specific scheme of emergency benefit at the time of the stoppage, and existing supplementary benefit claimants were not affected. They continued to receive their supplementary benefits.
The answer to question 4 is "Yes". For example, earnings-related supplementary benefit was not payable.
The answer to question 5 is again "Yes". Contribution conditions were not considered.
I should point out that the order relates entirely to the past and is in some respects retrospective legislation. It does not relate to anything that is likely to happen in future.
Although a great deal of the discussion was ruled out of order, I gathered from the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West and Kingston upon Hull, Central that there is a sense of unease and that they and probably the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were in


effect asking for a debate on Northern Ireland. Their points are on record and will no doubt be seen by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who is responsible for arranging the business of the House.
I must stress that what happened in May should not be regarded as a precedent. Some hon. Members referred to the order as a precedent. It is not. I am not suggesting that another emergency scheme such as the one promulgated by the head of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland in May will never be promulgated again.
I think it would be wrong for hon. Members to assume that such an order and a consequential order like the one before the House would be promulgated again. Questions about what might happen in the future are to a large extent hypothetical and I do not intend to answer them, but the idea of calling the order a precedent should not necessarily be encouraged.
My reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North is that the order does not authorise payments made under the emergency benefit scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has got that point. The order is designed to prevent double payments for the period of the emergency. I gather that the hon. Gentleman understands me on that.
I think I have answered all the questions that were asked, and I commend the order to the House and hope that it will be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 1268), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July 1974 in the last Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (PENSIONS INCREASE)

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Pensions (Increase) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 1267), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July 1974 in the last Parliament, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not go into great detail on this order except to say that its purpose it to ensure that public servants in Northern Ireland who retired during stages 1 and 2 of the previous Government's prices and incomes policy do not have their pensions permanently curtailed as a result of retiring during that period of stringent incomes control. The order is in line with similar orders passed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The order was originally tabled when we were the Opposition and the present Opposition were the Government. We agreed with the order at that time, and I understand that the present Opposition agree with it now. I hope, therefore, that the order will receive a favourable wind and will help to relieve some of the stress and financial stringency of people retired from the Northern Ireland public service.
In addition, the order raises the age limit for increases in children's pensions under the 1971 Act from age 16 to age 17 and removes the age restriction for the payment of increases to widows without dependent children.
The cost is estimated at £100,000 in the first year, of which about £90,000 will fall on the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and £10,000 on local government revenue. Subsequent annual costs will decrease as the number of pensioners affected is reduced.

11.29 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We on this side of the House welcome the order. I understand that its purpose is to rubber-stamp legislation already passed by the House.
There is just one matter on which the Minister can perhaps help us. Article 4(3) states:
Regulations may provide that, in relation to any pensions specified in the regulations


functions of the pension authority under this Order shall be performed on behalf of the pension authority by such other authority as is so specified.

Mr. Moyle: If no one else wishes to speak, I shall reply very briefly to the debate. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's query has just arrived, by some remarkable circumstances, as I rose to speak.
Article 4(3) is a general provision comparable to Section 2(4) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1974, which is our corresponding Westminster legislation. In Northern Ireland the local authorities' staff—for example, the head of Bangor District Council—receive their pension benefits from the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, and Article 4(3) would give approval to this arrangement in relation to the particular increases dealt with in this order.
I trust that that information satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pensions (Increase) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 1267), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July 1974 in the last Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EXPENDITURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Alison, Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. James Boyden, Sir Edward Brown, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Mr. Cope, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Sir John Eden, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. Peter Hardy, Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Ralph Howell. Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Nigel Lawson, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Frank McElhone, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Ken Marks, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Anthony Meyer, Dr. Maurice Miller, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Christopher Price, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. John Roper, Mr. Timothy Sainsbury, Mr. Neville Sandelson, Mr. Sedgemore, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Hamish Watt, and Mr. Phillip Whitehead be members of the Expenditure Committee.

Ordered,
That the members of the Expenditure Committee nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask which of the motions has just been put to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have just put the Question on first the motion on expenditure.

Orders of the Day — EXPENDITURE

Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Defence and External Affairs Subcommittee and the Social Services Sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament and reported to the House be referred to the Expenditure Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seventeen Members.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Six be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That these Orders, and the Order relating to Privileges made on 29th October, be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Edward Heath, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. John Peyton, Sir Peter Rawlinson, Sir David Renton, Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Derek Walker-Smith and Mr. Frederick Willey be Members of the Committee of Privileges.

Ordered,
That the members of the Committee of Privileges nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 7th November relating to the Committee on Consolidation &amp;c., Bills be now considered.

Lords Message considered accordingly.

The Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills was nominated of Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Edward Lyons, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Caerwyn Roderick, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, and Mr. William Wilson.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with the order necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.

Ordered,
That there shall be a Select Committee to consider draft proposals by the Commission of the European Economic Community for secondary legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers, and to report their opinion as to whether such proposals or other documents raise questions of legal or political importance, to give their reasons for their opinion, to report what matters of principle or policy may be affected thereby, and to what extent they may affect the law of the United Kingdom, and to make recommendations for the further consideration of such proposals and other documents by the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit not-

withstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them and any Memoranda submitted to them.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report to the Committee from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-committees, and any Memoranda submitted to them.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &amp;c. or any Sub-committee appointed by the Committee have leave to confer with any Committee appointed by the Lords or the European Communities or any Sub-committee appointed by them.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. John Davies, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Edward Lyons, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Neil Marten, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. John Roper, Mr. Julius Silverman and Mr. James Spicer be Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &amp;c. nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Ordered,
That any Member requested by the Committee appointed by the Lords or the European Communities to attend as a witness before them or before any Sub-committee appointed by them shall have the leave of this House so to attend, if the Member think fit.

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th November],
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable for the more efficient despatch of the Public Business of the House in relation to European subordinate legislation, &amp;c., recommended by any Committee on that subject for further consideration by the House; and to consider how the number of late sittings of the House might be reduced; and to report on those matters.
That Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Harry Gourlay, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. John Mendelson, Dr. Phipps, Mr. J. Enoch Powell and Mr. Nigel Spearing be members of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time.
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.

Debate further adjourned till tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — DAVYHULME SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: If we really had a theme for the debate tonight, it would be that a stench by any other name is still a stench. We are talking about a long-continuing problem which has been experienced by the constituents of myself and those of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) for a very long time.
I regret to say that neither Conservative nor Labour Ministers come out of this matter very well, largely because they were advised initially by the old Manchester authority and since then by the North West Water Authority. The information that they have received is completely contrary to the knowledge of the hon. Member for Stretford, whom I am pleased to see taking his place in the Chamber. He and I have for some years fought this problem, and fought it bitterly. All that we have had over the years is complacency, evasion and a complete lack of action.
I understand that now, at this late hour, there is an awareness of the problem. Indeed, out of the blue I have been invited—nay, I have been urged—to meet the chairman of the North West Water Authority. I normally accept invitations, and I am willing to meet him. I shall meet him to thank him when he and his authority have solved the problem—but not before.
I do not want any chairman or any bureaucrat to tell me about the smells in this area, and neither does the hon. Member for Stretford. We know about them. Perhaps the order should now go forth from the Department of the Environment saying to the North West Water Authority "Send your senior officials to Davyhulme. They shall reside there until they are satisfied that there is no smell." Throughout the years the hon. Member for Stretford and I have exchanged correspondence and kept each other abreast of Parliamentary Questions from time to time, and we have had continual evasion and complacency under both Governments.
I understand that at last there is a change of heart. At last the authorities have recognised that there is a nuisance in the area. They have been convinced not by their own efficiency but by the number of people who have written to them, the pressure from local authorities and the pressure from Members of Parliament, urging them to consider this problem carefully.
If there is to be a successful outcome to our efforts tonight, money, resources and human endeavours must be completely geared to relieving the suffering of tens of thousands of people. The former authority denied that there was


a smell. The trouble was that the people denying it were at least 20 miles upwind. What I can say to my hon. Friend the Minister—and he is my friend, a very real friend—is that I want action tonight and a promise that a firm commitment will be made to resolve this problem. Anyone can talk about masking the problem. Anyone can talk about absorption and the destruction of the odour. We are concerned so much with that as with the prevention of the formation of the odour. That is what we are after.
I have referred to tens of thousands of people. That is a modest estimate. There are people in Davyhulme, Urmston, Eccles, Worsley, Flixton, Salford and Swinton who are complaining bitterly. It is not only from the old Manchester authority that we get the same drivel. On 8th May I received a long report from the Middle Mersey Effluent Treatment Unit which really was absurd. It talked about "allegations of odour". These were not allegations. These were strong smells, about which everybody knew except the people being paid to know. They made sure that they kept a long way off. The report talked about a complaint in 1966 and again in 1967 and said that ASP1 went out of action, and that caused it. I do not know what "ASP1" means; all I know is that there was a smell!
The report continued:
At the beginning of October 1969, sludge for marine disposal was received from an outside local authority, in this case Bury"—

Mr. Frank R. White: Oh!

Mr. Carter-Jones: Yes—
as the forerunner of the sludge disposal facilities later to be provided for the local authorities of South East Lancashire forming the Sludge Disposal Consortium".
That consortium was encouraged by my hon. Friend's Department—the Department of the Environment. The responsibility rests with the old local authorities, with the Department of the Environment, under both Governments, and with the North West Water Authority.
Perhaps what staggered me most about the document—this is a gem—was the information that
In January 1972 the MV 'Gilbert J. Fowler' came into use.

Whoever chose that name chose well. The report went on:
Previously, loading of the MV 'Mancunian' and the MV 'Percy Dawson' had not been generally visible to the public. A potential source of odour was eliminated by passing air between the cargo tanks of the 'Percy Dawson'"—
and so on.
I know that it is laughable, but that is what was said. I find this next bit intolerable, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stretford will agree:
Complaints appear to have been accentuated because the loading facilities are in the direct view of surrounding properties".
That is disgraceful.
The last letter I received on this matter came from the vicar of Peel Green, Rev. Richard Hatch, who lives two miles from the site and could not possibly see it. He and his parishioners, thousands of people, two miles on our side of the border, could not see the vessel but were complaining about the pervasive stench entering their homes, permeating clothing, and the rest.

Mr. Churchill: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, from the other direction. My flat is 1½ miles from the works, to the south. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to residents to the north. The stench is quite unbelievable even a mile and a half or two miles to the south of the works and, as he rightly says, it affects tens of thousands of people.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. The report from the officials, the technologists, the men who are supposed to know, says that the problem arises because of slippage on the slipway. This is the biggest slippage of all time, and the Department must do something about it.
So far we have talked in lighthearted terms. But tens of thousands of people are affected. The Department has denied the smell. The local authorities have denied the smell. The water authority has denied the smell. Now, tonight, is the time for a firm commitment from the Department that it will give urgent priority in manpower, in technology and in financial resources to relieve a substantial number of ordinary people of a grave abuse and nuisance. I hope that the Minister will act.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: At the outset I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones)perhaps on this non-political occasion I may call him my honourable friend from across the Ship Canal—for kindly inviting me to share his time tonight. This is a matter of grave concern not only to his constituency but to mine, where the works actually are.
We greatly appreciated it when the Minister took time this summer to visit the works in person. Indeed some of us were rather alarmed, looking at the pictures in the local newspaper, because he seemed almost about to fall into the primary digester tank. We appreciate his coming, but we are not convinced, and the local residents are not convinced, that the Minister and his Department are sufficiently seized of the gravity of the problem and of the large number of people who are affected by it.
This must be one of the largest works in the United Kingdom. It takes all the sewage from the Greater Manchester area. That is the effluent of more than 1 million people, including a great deal of industrial effluent as well. On top of that, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are road tankers coming in, several each hour, from Bury and other parts of South Lancashire, and now from parts of North Cheshire. The tankers are unmarked, and one can readily understand that. I hope that no one has an accident with one of them on the Barton high level bridge, because it would be very unpleasant.
These tankers come in loaded with raw sewage, and it is then loaded into the primary digester tank. That is one source of smell. Another major source, I think the major source, of smell is where the sludge comes to be loaded on the four vessels which are continually doing the round trip down to the Mersey Bar and dumping their sludge at sea. They return to load up, and the loading arm is within 200 ft. of people's homes. This causes a great deal of nuisance and an outrageous level of smell not only to immediate residents but to those living one, two or even three miles away. The nuisance depends on which way the wind is blowing. Sometimes the people living in the Eccles constituency get the smell.
Very often my constituents suffer. The smell affects tens of thousands of homes.
There is an active residents' committee. I have arranged two meetings on site with them this year when we have been able to suggest minor improvements which have been effected on the loading arm. A skirt was put round it so that less spray would fly up and give rise to less smell. On another occasion we managed to get a cover put on the top of the primary digester tank. These are minor improvements. The people employed at the works have been enormously co-operative and do all they can to help.
We believe, however, that the time has come for a radical new look to be taken at the whole operation. Will the Minister undertake that his Department will give a great deal more consideration to providing some alternative system? As a layman I have but two suggestions, and they are no doubt not the right ones. They could be considered just the same.
The first suggestion would be a pipeline which would take the sewage and sludge down the Ship Canal straight to the Mersey Bar. That would be costly but it would save the cost of at least four ships and their crews which involve a major operation. Most important, however, it would stop the smell that arises from the loading of the sludge. The second would be a shorter pipeline to take the sewage away from the residential area so that either a new loading area could be established further down the river or, alternatively, an incinerator could be located at that point to dispose of household rubbish and the sludge.
Does the Minister believe that it is right that houses should have been built within 200 ft. of one of the largest sewage works in the country? What compensation is available to residents who are most affected by this smell? The situation has deteriorated markedly since most of them moved to the area. The road tankers have been coming only since 1969 and the vessels have been increased from one to two, and then to four, so that the volume is now much greater than it was.
Will the Minister give an assurance that money is to be spent in modernising the Eccles sewage works, which is the outdated works on the other side of the canal and which is a major source of


smell? Finally, will he give an assurance that his Department is willing to join with the North West Water Authority in a study of a potential alternative to the present process?

11.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I have listened with close attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) have said about the problem of smell from the sewage treatment works at Davyhulme. They have both taken a keen interest in the situation for a considerable time. I am glad to have this opportunity to explain what is being done to improve matters.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem has existed for a long time. He has complained that for a long time he has met with evasion, a complete lack of action and complacency. I assure the House that I do not regard the matter with any complacency. I visited the works, partly as a result of my hon. Friend's letters and the Questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. When I answered a Question from the hon. Gentleman which met with a great deal of mirth from hon. Members, I told the House that it was not a matter for mirth for those who had the misfortune to live within the odour distance of a sewage works.
I was able to visit Davyhulme only a couple of months ago at the invitation of the North West Water Authority, which is now responsible for running the works. This gave me a welcome opportunity to see things for myself and to have a most valuable discussion about the problem with the chairman and officers of the authority.
Although people who are not within the Chamber must be invisible, may I say that this is the first time I have ever dealt with an Adjournment debate when the chairman of an authority has taken the trouble to travel from the North-West specifically to listen to the debate. This demonstrates the interest being shown by the new North West Water Authority in a problem which, I agree with both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, has existed with Manchester for many years.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I want to stress that

some of my quotations were from the North West Water Authority, not from a Minister or a local authority. Therefore, the authority must accept the responsibility for the rubbishy answer I was given. It came not from the Manchester authority but from the water authority.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend will not receive a rubbishy answer from me, because, like him, I represent an industrial constituency in the North-West and I am aware of the problems of which he and the hon. Gentleman have spoken.
It is common ground between everyone concerned that a problem exists at Davyhulme which must be solved. Davyhulme is not, of course, the only source of smells in the area. Other treatment works and local industry are involved as well. It would be unrealistic to expect sewage treatment to be carried out without any whiff of a smell. Nevertheless, let me make it quite clear that I am on the side of the people living near Davyhulme in seeking by every possible means to reduce both the frequency and strength of the smells given off by the works. Far more important, I can assure the House that so is the new North West Water Authority.
Before I describe the action which the authority has already taken and is proposing to take, it might be helpful for me to sketch in a little of the background to show how the problem has arisen. The first sewage treatment works at Davyhulme was completed as long ago as 1894. It has expanded steadily since then in response to increases in population and the growing quantities of waste generated by industrial development and higher standards of living. It has also been used to treat sewage which was previously discharged raw, and this has brought about a very considerable improvement in the condition of the Manchester Ship Canal and the River Mersey. Today, Davyhulme is one of the largest treatment works in the country with a high standard of operating efficiency. However, it is not just a very large treatment works; it has also developed over the years as a sub-regional terminal for the disposal of sewage sludge from districts other than Manchester.
The works receives domestic sewage from a population approaching 1 million in Manchester and neighbouring areas.
This domestic sewage constitutes about two-thirds of the dry-weather flow. The other one-third comprises industrial effluents. In terms of load on the works, however, the proportions are roughly reversed with the industrial effluents representing about twice the pollution load of the domestic sewage, The treatment of the liquid part of sewage gives rise to smell. The problem at Davyhulme derives largely from the storage and handling of sludge.
It has been the practice since 1897 for the sludge produced at Davyhulme to be dumped in deep water in the Irish Sea. In the early days, the sludge produced at other treatment works in the Manchester area was disposed of inland. With the growth of Greater Manchester and of improved sewage treatment methods, however, the load of sludge generated throughout the area has steadily increased. In recent years it became more difficult to find suitable sites for the disposal of sludge on land. There are now four vessels operating from Davyhulme and a fifth from Salford. In all, they handle about 1·3 million tons of sludge a year.
I should like to answer the first point put to me by the hon. Member for Stretford. There are some difficulties with pipelines in that the Pipe-Lines Act does not relate to the disposal of sludge, nor does the Public Health Act. But there is a more practical difficulty since a pipeline must terminate somewhere. The practice in the North-West area—the correct practice—is to dispose of the sludge not immediately in inshore waters but far out to sea, so that at some point a ship must be involved. Therefore, a pipeline would not be an economic possibility to take the sludge away out into the Irish Sea as far as we wish to dispose of it.

Mr. Churchill: I have observed these vessels from the air, and they discharge about five miles off Liverpool at the Mersey Bar. Therefore, it would not require a vessel and it could involve a pipeline.

Mr. Oakes: That would involve a five-mile pipeline under the Irish Sea, which would create some difficult technological problems as to positioning.
This was the situation which the Water Authority inherited in April this year and in the comparatively short time since then it has shown quite clearly that it means business. It quickly formed the view that the disposal of sewage sludge from a wide area of the Manchester conurbation was one of the most serious and urgent of the operational problems which it had to solve. Its approach to the problem has been twofold: to take whatever immediate action is possible to alleviate the nuisance at Davyhulme and to study the problem of sludge disposal generally with a view to evolving a satisfactory long-term solution for the Manchester conurbation as a whole.
I have also been pleased to see that the authority has been in close touch right from the start with local residents. Two meetings have been held, and this is something new for the residents in my hon. Friend's constituency. The responsible authority has taken an interest in complaints and has been prepared to meet them—[Interruption.] I repeat that it was prepared to meet the residents.
Let me say a word about the immediate measures which the authority has taken or has in hand. There are three stages in the process of handling and storing sludge which can lead to smells—namely, when the sludge is unloaded from road tankers, when it is loaded into the ships and while it is being stored in sludge consolidation tanks. Improvements have been made at each stage.
A tower which is used for receiving sludge from the road tankers has been covered and vented through activated carbon filters. The shipping capacity has been more intensively used to reduce the time during which the sludge is stored. The deodorant sprays used to mask smells from the sludge consolidation tanks—I agree that this is no long-term solution—have been uprated to give better results in certain weather conditions. The authority is also planning to fit improved activated carbon filters to the sludge disposal ships where this will be of benefit.
Those measures should help to relieve the problem in the short term, but the long-term solution must lie in the wider studies which the authority has already put in hand. One of the first things it did—

Mr. Carter-Jones: rose—

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry, I do not have time to give way as well as give my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stretford the reply they deserve.
One of the first things that was done by the authority was to set up an internal planning group of senior officers to study the problems of sludge disposal. It had a remit to give urgent attention to the situation in the Manchester conurbation. Consultants have now been commissioned to carry out an urgent investigation into alternative ways of disposing of sludge from sewage works in the conurbation. Their terms of reference require them to have regard to the need to reduce the smell nuisance at Davyhulme and to avoid a similar nuisance arising anywhere else in the area. They have also been asked to provide for full sludge digestion in every scheme in the belief that this could be a major factor in reducing smells. The authority has asked for the consultants' report to reach it in the New Year—in fact, in January—so that it will be able to decide on the most suitable scheme and prepare the Private Bill which it expects to need in time for deposit in November 1975.
It would be wrong to underestimate the size of the problem with which the

authority has to deal. There is no quick or cheap solution. A water authority has a statutory duty to deal with the sewage produced in its area and the quantity of sewage from both domestic and industrial sources is bound to go on increasing. Any comprehensive solution to the problem of sludge disposal will be expensive and the financing of major schemes is unlikely to get any easier in the near future.
I hope I have said enough to assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that the North West Water Authority is tackling the situation at Davyhulme with a clue sense of urgency, that it has already taken what action is open to it the short term and that it is vigorously pursuing a lasting solution to the problem at Davyhulme in the wider context of the needs of the conurbation as a whole. Having said that—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.